![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Revised VOC Rules
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19323-19327]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ap00-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MA063-01-7200a; A-1-FRL-6574-7A]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Revised VOC Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These SIP submittals
include revisions to regulations for controlling volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions, including emissions from marine vessel
loading and consumer products. The intended effect of this action is to
approve the revised regulations into the Massachusetts SIP. This action
is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on June 12, 2000 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by May 11, 2000. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air
Quality Planning Unit (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-
2023. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Office Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and the Division
of Air Quality Control, Department of Environmental Protection, One
Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Arnold, (617) 918-1047.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:
What action is EPA taking?
What are the CAA requirements for marine vessels?
How has Massachusetts addressed these CAA requirements?
What were the issues outlined in EPA's conditional approval of
Massachusetts' marine vessel rule?
How has Massachusetts addressed these issues?
What revisions did Massachusetts make to its VOC definition?
How does Massachusetts' VOC definition compare to EPA's VOC
definition?
What revisions did Massachusetts make to its consumer products
rule?
Why is EPA approving Massachusetts' SIP submittals?
What is the process for EPA's approval of these SIP revisions?
What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine
Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer'' and incorporating this rule into the
Massachusetts SIP. EPA is also approving definitions in 310 CMR 7.00
which are associated with the marine vessel rule. EPA is also approving
Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.00 definition of ``volatile organic
compound'' and an amendment to Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.25 ``Best
Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products'' and
incorporating these regulations into the Massachusetts SIP.
What Are the CAA Requirements for Marine Vessels?
Section 183(f) of the CAA requires EPA to promulgate reasonably
available control technology (RACT) standards to reduce VOC emissions
from the loading and unloading of 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
48388), EPA promulgated both RACT and MACT standards for marine tank
vessels. Section 183(f)(4) of the CAA states that after EPA promulgates
such standards, no State may adopt, or attempt to enforce, less
stringent standards for tank vessels subject to EPA's regulation.
In addition, section 182(b)(1) of the amended CAA requires States
with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above to
develop reasonable further progress plans to reduce VOC emissions by 15
percent within these areas by 1996 when compared to 1990 baseline VOC
emission levels. Also, section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA requires that
RACT be implemented for all major VOC sources by May 31, 1995. Pursuant
to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts was designated as serious nonattainment for ozone.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). On June 9, 1999, EPA
revoked the one-hour ozone standard for eastern Massachusetts. See
64 FR 30911 (June 9, 1999). EPA has proposed to reinstate that
standard. See 64 FR 57424 (October 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, in Massachusetts, sources with the potential to emit
greater than
[[Page 19324]]
50 tpy are considered major VOC sources. Furthermore, Massachusetts is
located in the Northeast Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The entire
Commonwealth is, therefore, subject to section 184(b) of the amended
CAA. Section 184(b) requires that RACT be implemented for all major VOC
sources (defined as 50 tons per year for sources in the OTR).
How Has Massachusetts Addressed These CAA Requirements?
In response to the above CAA requirements, Massachusetts adopted
310 CMR 7.24(8) to control VOC emissions from marine vessel transfer
operations. On August 27, 1996 (61 FR 43973), EPA issued a conditional
approval of Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.24(8) marine vessel rule. EPA's
conditional approval cited two outstanding issues associated with
Massachusetts' regulation.
What Were the Issues Outlined in EPA's Conditional Approval of
Massachusetts' Marine Vessel Rule?
EPA's conditional approval of Massachusetts' marine vessel rule
cited the following two outstanding issues associated with this
regulation: (1) a lack of monitoring requirements; and (2) emission
limits for ballasting operations.
(1) Lack of Monitoring Requirements
Massachusetts' marine vessel rule requires that, upon initial
startup of the air pollution control equipment, the owner or operator
of a marine terminal conduct an initial performance test in order to
demonstrate compliance. However, the initially adopted version of the
rule did not require the facility to demonstrate continued compliance
as is generally required of VOC sources. Specifically, as noted in
EPA's conditional approval, 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 any
periods of operation during which the previously established parameter
boundaries are exceeded.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the monitoring requirements of EPA's national marine
vessel rule (especially sections 63.564 (e),(g), and (h)) and/or the
monitoring requirements Massachusetts has imposed on other types of
VOC sources (e.g., 310 CMR 7.18(2)(e)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Emission Limits for Ballasting Operations
The marine vessel rule that Massachusetts initially adopted applies
to the loading of an organic liquid and to ballasting operations.
However, the emissions limitations of the rule do not apply to
ballasting operations. EPA's conditional approval noted that, although
EPA's national marine vessel rule does not apply to ballasting
operations, the absence of emission limitations for ballasting
operations in Massachusetts' rule is inconsistent with the VOC emission
reductions claimed in Massachusetts' reasonable further progress (RFP)
plan for the Boston-Worcester-Lawrence ozone nonattainment area.
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' initial 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, EPA's conditional approval stated that
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.
How Has Massachusetts Addressed These Issues?
On October 17, 1997, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision
containing a revised version of its marine vessel rule 310 CMR 7.24(8).
Massachusetts' revised marine vessel rule adequately addresses the two
issues outlined in EPA's conditional approval.
(1) Lack of Monitoring Requirements
In Massachusetts' revised rule, a new provision has been added
which requires emission control equipment to be monitored in accordance
with the procedures specified in EPA's national marine vessel rule,
specifically sections 63.564(e) through (j) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart
Y. Massachusetts has, therefore, adequately addressed the issue of
monitoring requirements.
The revised rule also includes a reference to the vapor-tightness
pressure test procedures in EPA's national rule, specifically section
63.565(c)(1) of 40 CFR part 63, subpart Y. Previously, Massachusetts'
rule required that these tests be ``conducted in accordance with
procedures specified by the DEP and EPA.''
(2) Emission Limits for Ballasting Operations
In Massachusetts' revised rule, the requirement for marine terminal
owners to install and operate equipment to control VOC emissions which
result solely from ballasting operations has been rescinded. However,
the revised rule states that, if a system is in place to control
emissions from gasoline loading operations, then that system must also
be used to control ballasting emissions. In such a case, ballasting
emissions are subject to the emission limits of the rule.
Massachusetts' revision is acceptable since ballasting emissions in
Massachusetts are now known to be less significant than originally
estimated. As previously stated, Massachusetts had initially calculated
uncontrolled ballasting emissions to be 2.8 tpsd. However, as reported
in Massachusetts public hearing background document, industry data has
subsequently shown that 1994 uncontrolled ballasting emissions were
only 0.4 tpsd. Massachusetts plans to adjust future emissions inventory
estimates of ballasting emissions to reflect this lower level of
emissions.
In addition, as previously mentioned, EPA's national marine vessel
rule does not apply to ballasting operations. In promulgating this
rule, EPA noted that the U.S. Coast Guard has regulations which address
ballasting and that ``the relatively low amount of actual emissions
associated with ballasting does not justify dual regulation of
ballasting.''
What Revisions Did Massachusetts Make to Its VOC Definition?
On July 30, 1996, Massachusetts submitted a SIP revision containing
revisions to its 310 CMR 7.00 definition of the term ``volatile organic
compound.'' In the revised definition, acetone has been added to the
list of compounds that are exempt from the definition of VOC because of
their negligible photochemical reactivity. The revised definition also
clarifies that the previously adopted exemption for volatile methyl
siloxanes is specifically for ``cyclic, branched, or linear, completely
methylated siloxanes.'' EPA promulgated an exemption for acetone in its
definition of VOC on June 16, 1995 (60 FR 31633) and an exemption for
cyclic, branched, or linear, completely methylated siloxanes on October
5, 1994 (59 FR 50693).
[[Page 19325]]
How Does Massachusetts' VOC Definition Compare to EPA's VOC
Definition?
Massachusetts' revised VOC definition is consistent with EPA's VOC
definition codified at 40 CFR 51.100(s), with the exception of more
recent revisions to EPA's definition which were promulgated subsequent
to Massachusetts' July 30, 1996 SIP submittal. EPA promulgated these
additional revisions on October 8, 1996 (61 FR 52848), August 25, 1997
(62 FR 44900), and April 9, 1998 (63 FR 17331). These revisions add
more compounds to the list of those exempted from the definition of VOC
because of their negligible photochemical reactivity. Massachusetts'
VOC definition also does not include an exemption for perchloroethylene
which was promulgated by EPA on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588). As
stated in EPA's exemption rulemakings, States are not obligated to
exclude from control as a VOC those compounds that EPA has found to be
negligibly reactive. However, EPA will no longer enforce measures
controlling the exempted compounds as part of a federally-approved SIP.
EPA's exemption rulemakings also state that a State may not take credit
for controlling the EPA-exempted compounds in its ozone control
strategy. Nor may reductions of EPA-exempted compounds be used as
emission reduction credits or offsets to be traded against the emission
of non-exempt compounds. Massachusetts is not taking credit for
reductions of EPA-exempted compounds in its rate of progress plans and
does not allow trading of exempt for non-exempt emissions.
What Revisions Did Massachusetts Make to Its Consumer Products
Rule?
On July 30, 1996, Massachusetts submitted revisions to its 310 CMR
7.25 ``Best Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products.''
In this rule, minor clarifications were made to the definition of the
term ``waterproofing sealer.'' The revised definition is consistent
with EPA's national rule codified at 40 CFR part 59, subpart D
``National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings.''
Why Is EPA Approving Massachusetts' SIP Submittals?
EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised marine vessel rule because
the Commonwealth has successfully addressed the issues outlined in
EPA's earlier conditional approval. EPA is also approving Massachusetts
revised VOC definition and clarifications to its consumer product rule
because these revisions are consistent with current EPA guidance.
Further information on Massachusetts' October 17, 1997 and July 30,
1996 SIP submittals and EPA's evaluation of these submittals can be
found in a memorandum dated September 7, 1999 entitled ``Technical
Support Document--Massachusetts--Revised VOC Rules.'' Copies of this
document are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
What Is the Process for EPA's Approval of These SIP Revisions?
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This action will be effective June 12, 2000
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
May 11, 2000.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 12, 2000 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
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.
Final Action
EPA is approving Massachusetts' revised 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine
Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer'' and incorporating this rule into the
Massachusetts SIP. EPA is also approving the following definitions in
310 CMR 7.00 which are associated with the marine vessel rule:
``combustion device,'' ``leak,'' ``leaking component,'' ``lightering or
lightering operation,'' ``loading event,'' ``marine tank vessel,''
``marine terminal,'' ``marine vessel,'' ``organic liquid,'' and
``recovery device.'' EPA is also approving Massachusetts' revised 310
CMR 7.00 definition of ``volatile organic compound'' and an amendment
to Massachusetts' 310 CMR 7.25 ``Best Available Controls for Consumer
and Commercial Products'' and incorporating these regulations into the
Massachusetts SIP.
Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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). For the same reason,
this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not 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 approves 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 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
[[Page 19326]]
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 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 rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
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 June 12, 2000. 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).) Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping.
Dated: March 24, 2000.
Mindy S. Lubber,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
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 et seq.
Subpart W--Massachusetts
Sec. 52.1119 [Amended]
2. Remove Sec. 52.1119(a)(2).
3. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(115) and
(c)(121) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1120 Identification of plan
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(115) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on October 17,
1997 and July 30, 1996.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) 310 CMR 7.24(8) ``Marine Volatile Organic Liquid Transfer''
effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on October 5, 1997.
(B) Definition of ``volatile organic compound'' in 310 CMR 7.00
``Definitions'' effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June
28, 1996.
(C) Definition of ``waterproofing sealer'' in 310 CMR 7.25 ``Best
Available Controls for Consumer and Commercial Products'' effective in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 28, 1996.
(ii) Additional materials
(A) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.
* * * * *
(121) 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) 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) Nonregulatory portions of the submittal.
4. In Sec. 52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding new entries
to existing state citations for 310 CMR 7.00 and 310 CMR 7.25; and by
adding new state citation 310 CMR 7.24(8).
Sec. 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulation.
* * * * *
Table 52.1167.--EPA-Approved Massachusetts Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Date Comments/
State citation Title/subject submitted approved Federal Register 52.1120(c) unapproved
by State by EPA citation sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
310 CMR 7.00.......... Definitions..... 7/30/96 4/11/00 [Insert FR 115 Definition of
citation from ``volatile
published date]. organic
compound''
revised.
* * * * * *
*
310 CMR 7.00.......... Definitions..... 1/11/95 4/11/00 [Insert FR 121 Definitions
3/29/95 citation from associated
published date]. with marine
vessel rule.
* * * * * *
*
310 CMR 7.24(8)....... Marine Volatile 10/17/97 4/11/00 [Insert FR 115 ...............
Organic Liquid citation from
Transfer. published date].
[[Page 19327]]
* * * * * *
*
310 CMR 7.25.......... Best Available 7/30/96 4/11/00 [Insert FR 115 Definition of
Controls for citation from ``waterproofin
Consumer and published date]. g sealer''
Commercial revised.
Products.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 00-8830 Filed 4-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P