[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46758-46760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-22618]



[[Page 46758]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD126-3080; FRL-7051-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; 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 State of Maryland. 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). Cecil County, 
Maryland is part of the Philadelphia area. The intended effect of this 
action is to propose approval of a RACM analysis submitted by the State 
of Maryland. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean 
Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 9, 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 Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179. Or 
by e-mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What Previous Proposed Actions Have Been Taken on the Attainment 
Demonstration SIP Revisions?

    On December 16, 1999, we proposed approval of the attainment 
demonstration for the Philadelphia area, which was submitted on April 
29, 1998 (64 FR 70412). We supplemented our December 16, 1999 proposed 
action on July 28, 2000 (65 FR 46383) and July 16, 2001 (66 FR 36964).

B. When Did Maryland Submit the RACM Analysis?

    On August 20, 2001, the State of Maryland (Maryland) submitted the 
RACM analysis (Maryland SIP Revision Number 01-09) for the Philadelphia 
area as a SIP revision.

II. Analysis of the Maryland 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 Maryland on August 20, 2001, as a 
supplement to its attainment demonstration SIP for the Philadelphia 
area, addresses the RACM requirement. Maryland has considered a variety 
of potential stationary/area source controls such as limits on area 
source categories not covered by a control technique guideline (CTG) 
(e.g., motor vehicle refinishing, and surface/cleaning degreasing); 
rule effectiveness improvements; controls on major stationary sources 
of nitrogen oxides (NOX) beyond that required under 
reasonably available control technology (RACT); and other potential 
measures. Maryland considered a variety of potential mobile source 
control measures such as alternative fuel vehicles; bicycle and 
pedestrian improvements; early retirement of older motor vehicles; land 
use and development changes; transit improvements; employer based 
programs; congestion pricing for low occupancy vehicles; traffic flow 
improvements; outreach and education; parking restrictions; market-
based/economic incentive-based program; low emission vehicle standards; 
and other measures such as trip reduction ordinances, value pricing and 
highway ramp metering.
    The State has implemented measures which went beyond the Federally 
mandated controls, which were found to be cost effective and 
technologically feasible. Maryland has adopted and submitted rules for 
the following categories of area sources which go beyond the Federally 
mandated controls. The following are examples and not an exhaustive 
list:
    (1) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
motor vehicle refinishing. The rule includes volatile organic compound 
(VOC) content limits for motor vehicle refinishing coatings, 
application standards and storage and house keeping work practices. 
This rule goes beyond the Federal rule in content limits, and sets 
application and work practices standards.
    (2) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has approved, a rule for control 
of VOC emissions from screen printing on plywood used for signs, and 
untreated sign paper.
    (3) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
control of VOC emissions from screen printing, lithographic printing, 
drying ovens, adhesive application, and laminating

[[Page 46759]]

equipment used to produce a credit card or similar plastic card 
product.
    (4) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
control of VOC emissions from ``digital imaging''--printers that use a 
computer driven machine to transfer an electronically stored image onto 
the substrate through the use of inks, toners, or other similar color 
graphic materials via ink jet, electrostatic, and spray jet 
technologies.
    (5) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
control of VOC emissions from cold and vapor degreasing that includes 
requirements that go beyond the applicable CTG. Maryland restricts the 
vapor pressure of solvents used to 1 mm Hg at 20 deg. C (0.019 psia) or 
less for and cold degreasing, including cold or vapor degreasing at: 
service stations; motor vehicle repair shops; automobile dealerships; 
machine shops; and any other metal refinishing, cleaning, repair, or 
fabrication facility.
    (6) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
control of VOC and NOX emissions by banning open burning 
activities from June 1 through August 31 of each year.
    (7) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule for 
control of VOC emissions from lithographic printing.
    Maryland has adopted and submitted rules for additional ``beyond 
RACT'' reductions in NOX emissions as follows:
    (1) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a 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 
specified major point sources of NOX. The rule grants each 
source a fixed number of NOX allowances, applies state-wide, 
and required compliance starting during the 2000 ozone season. It 
reduces NOX emissions both inside and outside the 
Philadelphia area.
    (2) Maryland has adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule to 
implement the NOX SIP call. The Maryland rule requires 
compliance commencing with the start of the 2003 ozone season. (This 
measure is identified as Phase II/III control under the OTC MOU on 
NOX control in the attainment demonstration).
    Maryland has also adopted, and EPA has SIP approved, a rule 
requiring the sale of vehicles under the national low-emission vehicle 
program (NLEV).
    Maryland has considered a variety of potential mobile source 
control measures such as alternative fuel vehicles; bicycle and 
pedestrian improvements; early retirement of older motor vehicles; land 
use and development changes; transit improvements; employer based 
programs; congestion pricing for low occupancy vehicles; traffic flow 
improvements; outreach and education; parking restrictions; market-
based/economic incentive-based program; and other measures such as trip 
reduction ordinances, value pricing and highway ramp metering.
    The Maryland portion (Cecil County) of the Philadelphia area has 
unique local characteristics that affect the effectiveness of many 
mobile source measures. The first is that the majority of the vehicle 
travel occurs on the Interstate 95 highway; much of this traffic is 
through traffic that would not be affected by locally adopted 
transportation control measures. Cecil County is a rural area without 
much of the mass transit infrastructure found in State's other major 
nonattainment areas (Baltimore, Metropolitan Washington, DC). The area 
has few point sources of VOC emissions and no major sources of 
NOX. Most of the area source VOC emissions are already 
subject to regulation. Maryland determined that many of the considered 
measures were not to be RACM due to the potential for substantial 
widespread and long-term adverse impacts, or for various reasons 
related to local conditions, such as economics or implementation 
concerns. A large number of the considered measures were rejected on 
these grounds or on the grounds that they could not be implemented by 
2005 much less any earlier. Some were rejected because they would not 
advance attainment because the measure had benefits outside the ozone 
season or would be sporadically implemented (not episodically) such as 
the ``try transit week'' items. These explanations are provided 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 one 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 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, 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 or 2004 under the NOX SIP call or 
section 126 petitions.
    As previously stated, the Philadelphia attainment demonstration 
contains UAM modeling 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 one hour ozone standard. 
To demonstrate attainment of the one hour ozone standard, the modeling 
required the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia area to achieve 
emissions levels on the order of 8.2 tons per day of VOC emissions and 
10.5 tons per day of NOX. To reach these emissions levels, 
emission reductions (relative to the 1990 base year) of 3.2 tons per 
day of NOX and 10.3 tons per day of VOC are necessary in the 
Maryland portion of the Philadelphia area. Any potential reductions 
from the remaining potential RACM measures in aggregate are small 
compared to the 2005 attainment demonstration reductions (plus the 
addition of 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

[[Page 46760]]

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 
Maryland's August 20, 2001 RACM submittal. EPA is proposing to approve 
Maryland's SIP revision for RACM, which was submitted on August 20, 
2001, as a supplement to its one 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 
State of Maryland on August 20, 2001 as a supplement to its one hour 
attainment demonstration for the Philadelphia area. This revision is 
being proposed under a procedure called parallel processing, whereby 
EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the state's procedures 
for amending its regulations. If the proposed revision is substantially 
changed in areas other than those identified in this action, EPA will 
evaluate those changes and may publish another supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking. If no substantial changes are made other than 
those areas cited in this action, EPA will publish a Final Rulemaking 
Notice on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur 
only after the SIP revision has been adopted by Maryland and submitted 
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP.

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 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 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 Maryland'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 31, 2001.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 01-22618 Filed 9-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P