Document ID: EPA-R01-OAR-2005-ME-0006-0015
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-01-05T05:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
EPA­
R01­
OAR­
2005­
ME­
0006
;
A­
1­
FRL­
]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
Air
Quality
Implementation
Plans;
Maine;
15%
and
5%
Emission
Reduction
Plans,
Inventories,
and
Transportation
Conformity
Budgets
for
the
Portland
One
and
Eight
Hour
Ozone
Nonattainment
Areas
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
revisions
submitted
by
the
state
of
Maine.
These
revisions
establish
a
15%
VOC
emission
reduction
plan,

and
revised
1990
base
year
emissions
inventory,
for
the
Portland
Maine
one­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area.
Additionally,
these
revisions
establish
a
5%
increment
of
progress
emission
reduction
plan,
2002
base
year
inventory,
and
transportation
conformity
budget
for
the
Portland
Maine
eight­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area.
The
intended
effect
of
this
action
is
to
propose
approval
of
these
plans
as
revisions
to
the
Maine
SIP.
This
action
is
being
taken
under
the
Clean
Air
Act.

DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
Insert
date
30
days
from
date
of
publication].

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Regional
Material
in
EDocket
(
RME)
ID
Number
EPA­
R01­
OAR­
2005­
ME­
0006
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

1.
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:
http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
2
for
submitting
comments.

2.
Agency
Website:
http://
docket.
epa.
gov/
rmepub/
Regional
Material
in
EDocket
(
RME),

EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
will
be
replaced
by
an
enhanced
federal­
wide
electronic
docket
management
and
comment
system
located
at
www.
regulations.
gov.
On
November
28,
2005,
when
that
occurs,
you
will
be
redirected
to
that
site
to
access
the
docket
EPA­
R01­
OAR­
2005­
ME­
0006
and
submit
comments.

Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

3.
E­
mail:
conroy.
dave@
epa.
gov
4.
Fax:
617­
918­
0661
5.
Mail:
"
RME
ID
Number
EPA­
R01­
OAR­
2005­
ME­
0006"
David
Conroy,
U.
S.

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
New
England
Regional
Office,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100
(
mail
code
CAQ),
Boston,
MA
02114­
2023.

6.
Hand
Delivery
or
Courier.
Deliver
your
comments
to:
David
Conroy,
Manager,
Air
Programs
Branch,
Office
of
Ecosystem
Protection,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
New
England
Regional
Office,
One
Congress
Street,
11th
floor,
(
CAQ),

Boston,
MA
02114­
2023.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Regional
Office's
normal
hours
of
operation.
The
Regional
Office's
official
hours
of
business
are
Monday
through
Friday,
8:
30
to
4:
30
excluding
federal
holidays.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Regional
Material
in
EDocket
(
RME)
ID
Number
EPAR01
OAR­
2005­
ME­
0006.
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
docket.
epa.
gov/
rmepub/

including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
3
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
through
Regional
Material
in
EDocket
(
RME),
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail,

information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected.
The
EPA
RME
website
and
the
federal
regulations.
gov
website
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
RME
or
regulations.
gov,

your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,
and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
electronic
docket
are
listed
in
the
Regional
Material
in
EDocket
(
RME)
index
at
http://
docket.
epa.
gov/
rmepub/.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.

Certain
other
material,
such
as
copyrighted
material,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
RME
or
in
hard
copy
at
Office
of
Ecosystem
Protection,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
EPA
New
England
Regional
Office,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,

Boston,
MA.
EPA
requests
that
if
at
all
possible,
you
contact
the
contact
listed
in
the
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT
section
to
schedule
your
inspection.
The
Regional
4
Office's
official
hours
of
business
are
Monday
through
Friday,
8:
30
to
4:
30
excluding
federal
holidays.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Bob
McConnell,
Air
Quality
Planning
Unit,

U.
S.
EPA
Region
1,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100­
CAQ,
Boston,
MA,
02114­
2023,
telephone
number
617­
918­
1046,
fax
number
617­
918­
0046,
e­
mail
mcconnell.
robert@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
How
Can
I
Get
Copies
Of
This
Document
and
Other
Related
Information
?

In
addition
to
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
available
for
inspection
electronically
in
Regional
Material
in
EDocket,
and
the
hard
copy
available
at
the
Regional
Office,
which
are
identified
in
the
ADDRESS
section
above,
copies
of
the
state
submittal
and
EPA's
technical
support
document
are
also
available
for
public
inspection
during
normal
business
hours,
by
appointment
at
the
Bureau
of
Air
Quality
Control,
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,

Tyson
Building,
First
Floor,
Augusta
Mental
Health
Institute
Complex,
Augusta,
ME
04333­

0017.

B.
What
Should
I
Consider
as
I
Prepare
My
Comments
for
EPA?

You
may
find
the
following
suggestions
helpful
for
preparing
your
comments:

1.
Explain
your
views
as
clearly
as
possible.

2.
Describe
any
assumptions
that
you
used.

3.
Provide
any
technical
information
and/
or
data
you
used
that
support
your
views.
5
4.
If
you
estimate
potential
burden
or
costs,
explain
how
you
arrived
at
your
estimate.

5.
Provide
specific
examples
to
illustrate
your
concerns.

6.
Offer
alternatives.

7.
Make
sure
to
submit
your
comments
by
the
comment
period
deadline
identified.

8.
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
identify
the
appropriate
regional
file/
rulemaking
identification
number
in
the
subject
line
on
the
first
page
of
your
response.
It
would
also
be
helpful
if
you
provided
the
name,
date,
and
Federal
Register
citation
related
to
your
comments.

II.
Rulemaking
Information
Organization
of
this
document.
The
following
outline
is
provided
to
aid
in
locating
information
in
this
preamble.

A.
Background
B.
15%
VOC
Emission
Reduction
Plan
1.
Background
2.
Calculation
of
required
reductions
a.
Step
1:
1990
Base
Year
Inventory
b.
Step
2:
1990
rate­
of­
progress
inventory
c.
Step
3:
Adjusted
base
year
inventory
d.
Step
4:
Calculation
of
required
reductions
e.
Step
5:
Determination
of
total
expected
reductions
f.
Step
6:
Target
level
of
emissions
g.
Step
7:
Project
emissions
to
target
year
3.
Evaluation
of
control
measures
6
a.
Point
source
controls
b.
Area
source
controls
c.
On­
road
mobile
source
controls
d.
Nonroad
mobile
source
controls
4.
Contingency
measures
C.
5%
Increment
of
Progress
Plan
1.
Background
2.
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
requirements
a.
Step
1:
Establish
2002
emissions
baseline
b.
Step
2:
Calculate
5%
reduction
c.
Step
3:
Project
emissions
to
2007
d.
Step
4:
Determine
emissions
target
e.
Step
5:
Compare
2007
to
2002
inventory
3.
Evaluation
of
control
measures
a.
Chapter
130
solvent
cleaning
rule
b.
Chapter
151
AIM
coatings
rule
c.
Chapter
152
consumer
products
rule
d.
Chapter
153
auto
repair
&
refinishing
rule
D.
Transportation
Conformity
Budgets
A.
Background
On
June
9,
13,
and
14,
2005,
the
Maine
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
DEP)

submitted
revisions
to
its
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
for
ozone.
These
revisions
consist
of
a
7
15%
rate­
of­
progress
(
ROP)
plan,
a
5%
increment
of
progress
emission
reduction
plan,
the
associated
base
year
emission
inventories
developed
in
support
of
these
plans,
and
transportation
conformity
budgets
for
2007
established
by
the
5%
increment
of
progress
plan.
A
public
hearing
on
these
SIP
revisions
was
conducted
by
the
state
on
April
21,
2005.
This
action
proposes
approval
of
these
SIP
revisions,
and
provides
EPA's
rationale
for
doing
so.

B.
15%
VOC
Emission
Reduction
Plan
1.
Background
Section
182(
b)(
1)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
as
amended
in
1990
requires
that
moderate
and
above
one
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
develop
plans
to
reduce
area
wide
Volatile
Organic
Compound
(
VOC)
emissions
from
a
1990
baseline
by
15%.
The
plans
were
required
to
be
submitted
by
November
15,
1993
and
the
reductions
were
required
to
be
achieved
within
6
years
after
enactment,
meaning
by
November
15,
1996.
The
CAA
also
set
limitations
on
the
creditability
of
certain
types
of
reductions.
For
example,
states
cannot
take
credit
for
reductions
achieved
by
Federal
Motor
Vehicle
Control
Program
(
FMVCP)
measures
(
new
car
emissions
standards)
that
were
already
in
place
prior
to
the
1990
amendments
to
the
CAA,
or
for
reductions
due
to
controls
on
gasoline
Reid
Vapor
Pressure
(
RVP)
that
were
promulgated
prior
to
1990.

In
1991,
EPA
designated
the
Portland
area,
which
includes
all
of
Cumberland,
Sagadahoc
and
York
counties,
as
a
nonattainment
area
for
the
one
hour
ozone
standard,
and
classified
the
area
as
moderate.
Maine
is,
therefore,
subject
to
the
15%
rate­
of­
progress
(
ROP)
requirement.
Maine
submitted
a
final
15%
ROP
plan
to
EPA
on
July
25,
1995.
However,
air
quality
in
the
Portland
area
fluctuated
above
and
below
the
one­
hour
ozone
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
8
1
May
10,
1995,
guidance
memorandum
signed
by
John
S.
Seitz,
Director
of
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
which
stated
in
part
that
ozone
nonattainment
areas
subject
to
15%
ROP
requirements
that
were
meeting
the
ozone
standard
did
not
need
to
submit
15%
ROP
plans
as
long
as
the
area
continued
to
meet
the
standard.
(
NAAQS)
after
1995.
Pursuant
to
EPA
policy1,
the
Agency
interpreted
the
Act
not
to
require
a
15%
plan
during
times
that
the
Portland
area's
air
quality
was
better
than
EPA's
one
hour
ozone
NAAQS,
and
so
EPA
never
approved
the
state's
June
1995
plan
into
the
SIP.

Beginning
in
2002,
the
Portland
area
has
again
been
in
violation
of
the
one
hour
ozone
standard,

and
so
the
15%
plan
requirement
is
again
pertinent
for
this
area.
In
consultation
with
Maine
DEP,

it
was
determined
that
the
state
would
revise
the
15%
plan
submitted
in
1995
to
reflect
up­
to­
date
emission
estimation
methodologies
and
control
strategies.
On
June
9,
2005,
the
state
submitted
a
revised,
adopted
15%
rate­
of­
progress
plan
for
the
Portland
one­
hour
nonattainment
area.

2.
Calculation
of
required
reductions
a.
Step
1:
1990
base
year
inventory.

The
first
step
in
calculating
the
emission
reductions
needed
to
comply
with
the
15%
VOC
emission
reduction
requirement
is
to
prepare
a
1990
base
year
emission
inventory
for
VOCs.
The
EPA
approved
Maine's
1990
base
year
inventory
of
ozone
precursors
on
February
28,
1997
(
62
FR
9081).
Some
of
the
emission
estimates
contained
within
Maine's
revised
15%
plan
submitted
in
June
of
2005
were
updated
using
improved
methodologies
that
have
arisen
since
the
earlier
inventory
was
prepared.
The
most
significant
revisions
made
occurred
in
the
estimates
for
mobile
sources.
For
the
nonroad
sector
(
excluding
commercial
marine,
rail,
and
emissions
from
aircraft),

Maine
DEP's
prior
emission
estimates
were
based
on
outdated
studies
conducted
for
EPA's
then
9
Office
of
Mobile
Sources
in
1991.
Since
that
time,
EPA
has
made
numerous
refinements
to
its
emission
estimation
techniques
for
the
diverse
types
of
nonroad
engines,
and
compiled
them
in
a
software
program
referred
to
as
the
Nonroad
Model.
Maine
DEP
used
this
tool
to
generate
a
revised
1990
emission
estimate
for
this
sector.
Additionally,
Maine
DEP's
originally
approved
1990
emission
estimate
for
on­
road
vehicles
was
based
on
EPA's
Mobile
5a
model.
The
state
recalculated
its
1990
emission
estimate
using
the
Mobile
6.2
version
of
the
model,
as
that
is
the
most
current
version.
Maine
also
made
changes
to
some
of
its
emission
estimates
for
stationary
sources,
as
outlined
in
the
support
material
submitted
by
the
state
with
this
SIP
revision.

Table
1
below
compares
the
previously
approved
emission
estimates
to
those
in
the
state's
revised
1990
inventory.

Table
1:
Comparison
of
1990
Emission
Estimates
(
tpsd)

SOURCE
CATEGORY
Originally
approved
emissions
June,
2005
emissions
Point
Source
9.65
9.65
Area
Source
31.8
33.43
Non­
road
Mobile
7.4
18.08
On­
Road
Mobile
49.87
63.31
Biogenic
197.6
197.6
Total
296.32
322.07
10
During
development
of
the
revised
15%
plan,
Maine
DEP
and
EPA
ensured
that
the
1990
emission
estimation
methodologies
matched
the
methods
used
to
prepare
its
projected
2005
inventory
to
ensure
that
the
same
methods
were
used
for
both
inventories.
This
was
done
to
ensure
that
emission
reduction
credit
was
not
taken
due
simply
to
changes
in
emission
estimation
technique.

b.
Step
2:
1990
rate­
of­
progress
inventory
The
second
step
involves
excluding
biogenic
emissions
and
emissions
included
within
the
base
year
inventory
which
do
not
emanate
from
within
the
boundaries
of
the
nonattainment
area.

Maine's
base
year
inventory
for
the
Portland
nonattainment
area
did
not
include
any
emissions
from
sources
outside
of
the
area.
Therefore,
step
2
consists
of
simply
subtracting
the
biogenic
VOC
component,
producing
a
"
rate­
of­
progress"
inventory
of
124.47
tpsd.

c.
Step
3:
Adjusted
base
year
inventory
The
third
step
in
calculating
the
required
emission
reductions
is
to
subtract
the
emission
reductions
that
are
not
creditable
toward
the
15%
VOC
emission
reduction
goal.
The
reductions
which
are
not
creditable
include
those
which
would
have
occurred
even
without
passage
of
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
due
to
control
programs
already
in
place.
The
FMVCP
and
gasoline
RVP
standards
are
examples
of
such
non­
creditable
programs.
Maine
had
no
RVP
reductions
to
account
for
since
the
state
has
been
using
gasoline
that
meets
the
required
RVP
maximum
of
9.0
psi
or
lower
since
1989,
but
did
have
to
account
for
the
non­
creditable
FMVCP
reductions.

Maine
included
within
the
15%
plan
the
input
and
output
MOBILE6.2
files
documenting
its
determination
of
these
reductions,
which
turned
out
to
be
35.93
tpsd.
Subtracting
this
amount
11
from
the
rate­
of­
progress
inventory
calculated
in
step
2
of
124.47
tpsd
yields
88.54
tpsd.

d.
Step
4:
Calculation
of
required
reductions
In
this
step,
the
adjusted
base
year
inventory
is
multiplied
by
15%
to
calculate
the
amount
of
the
required
15%
emission
reduction:
88.54
*
0.15
=
13.28
tpsd.

e.
Step
5:
Determination
of
total
expected
reductions
The
total
expected
reductions
from
the
1990
rate­
of­
progress
inventory
(
calculated
in
step
2)

include
the
15%
emission
reduction
calculated
in
step
4,
and
the
emission
reductions
anticipated
from
the
noncreditable
programs
as
outlined
in
step
3.
Additionally,
emission
reductions
that
occur
between
1990
and
1996
due
to
corrections
to
pre­
existing
(
pre­
1990)
but
deficient
I&
M
programs
and/
or
deficient
RACT
rules,
though
not
eligible
to
count
towards
the
15%
emission
reduction
requirement,
still
represent
emission
reductions
that
are
expected
to
occur
between
1990
and
1996.
Maine
did
not
have
a
pre­
1990
I&
M
requirement,
nor
any
"
RACT
Fix­
up"

obligations,
and
so
the
total
expected
emission
reductions
for
the
Portland
nonattainment
area
are
the
sum
of
reductions
from
steps
3
and
4:
35.93
+
13.28
=
49.21
tpsd.

f.
Step
6:
Target
level
of
emissions
The
target
level
of
emissions
for
1996
is
obtained
by
subtracting
the
total
required
reductions
(
step
5)
from
the
1990
rate­
of­
progress
inventory
(
step
2).
For
the
Portland
area
this
yields:

124.47
­
49.21
=
75.26
tpsd.

g.
Step
7:
Project
emission
to
target
year
12
The
original
15%
plans
required
by
the
CAA
were
required
to
be
submitted
to
EPA
in
1993.

These
plans
were
to
include
emission
projections
to
1996,
the
year
by
which
the
15%
emission
reductions
were
to
be
achieved.
Due
to
the
circumstances
described
above,
Maine
DEP's
revised
15%
plan
could
not
conceivably
demonstrate
that
a
15%
emission
reduction
occurred
from
1990
levels
by
1996,
as
that
year
has
passed.
Once
a
statutory
deadline
has
passed
and
has
not
been
replaced
by
a
later
one,
it
is
reasonable
to
require
the
plan
to
comply
with
the
act
"
as
soon
as
possible."
See
Delaney
v.
EPA,
898
F.
2d
687,
691
(
9th
Circuit,
1990).
EPA
has
interpreted
this
requirement
to
be
"
as
soon
as
practicable."
Upon
consultation
between
EPA
and
Maine
DEP,

EPA
determined
that
2005
is
the
most
suitable
year
by
which
Maine's
revised
15%
analysis
must
demonstrate
the
15%
reduction.
Accordingly,
an
estimate
of
emissions
in
2005
was
needed.

Although
an
estimate
of
2005
emission
was
needed,
the
most
current
inventory
available
to
Maine
DEP
was
its
2002
inventory,
and
so
an
estimate
of
growth
in
emissions
from
2002
to
2005
was
used
to
complete
the
15%
VOC
emission
reduction
demonstration.
This
was
accomplished
by
taking
the
2002
inventory
and
multiplying
it
by
growth
factors
which
estimate
growth
from
2002
to
2005.
Growth
factors
specific
to
each
source
category
were
used
since
the
sources
typically
grow
at
different
rates.
For
example,
Maine
used
growth
factors
obtained
from
the
Bureau
of
Economic
Analysis
(
BEA)
via
a
tool
they
developed
called
the
Economic
Growth
Analysis
System
(
EGAS)
to
project
most
of
the
point
and
area
source
emissions
growth
from
2002
to
2005.

Once
emissions
were
projected
to
2005,
a
review
was
made
to
see
if
any
controls
not
in
existence
in
2002
became
effective
by
2005.
If
so,
the
state
reduced
emissions
to
account
for
the
controls,
13
as
will
be
described
in
section
II.
B.
of
this
document.
Maine
DEP
did
not
use
the
emission
reductions
generated
pursuant
to
its
adoption
of
area
source
VOC
rules
developed
by
the
Ozone
Transport
Commission
(
OTC)
in
its
15%
plan,
i.
e.,
Maine's
projected
2005
emission
estimates
do
not
reflect
emission
reductions
from
these
measures.
Maine
DEP
did
use
reductions
from
these
measures
to
meet
its
5%
plan
emission
reductions
requirements
as
is
explained
in
Section
C.
of
this
document.

Table
2
below
compares
Maine's
projected,
controlled
2005
emissions
for
the
Portland
nonattainment
area
with
its
1990
emission
estimates:

Table
2:
Comparison
of
1990
and
2005
VOC
Emissions
Emission
Source
Category
1990
Base
Year
Emissions
2005
projected,
controlled
Emissions
Point
9.65
4.32
*

Area
33.43
24.7
Off­
road
Mobile
18.08
15.75
On­
road
Mobile
63.31
23.48
Total
124.47
68.25
*
includes
0.82
tpsd
in
VOC
offsets
awarded
to
Spinnaker
Coating
The
CAA
Section
182(
b)(
1)(
A)
language
regarding
the
15%
VOC
emission
reduction
requirement
states
that
this
reduction
must
occur,
"
accounting
for
any
growth
in
emissions
after
14
the
year
in
which
the
CAAA
of
1990
were
enacted."
EPA
interprets
this
passage
to
mean
any
growth
in
emission
levels
between
1990
and
1996
must
also
be
offset
so
that
by
1996,
emission
levels
will
be
truly
15%
lower
than
they
were
in
1990.
In
actuality,
emission
levels
will
be
reduced
by
more
than
15%
in
the
evaluation
year
because
other
required
reductions,
such
as
those
from
pre­
enactment
FMVCP,
will
also
be
occurring
as
described
above.

Maine's
projected,
controlled
2005
inventory
for
the
Portland
area
totals
68.25
tpsd.
This
is
considerably
lower
than
the
target
level
of
emissions
of
75.26
calculated
in
step
6.
Maine
DEP
has
therefore
shown
that
emissions
have
been
reduced
by
15%
from
1990
levels,
after
accounting
for
growth,
and
not
counting
the
non­
creditable
reductions
from
the
FMVCP
program.

3.
Evaluation
of
control
measures.

a.
Point
source
controls.

Maine
DEP's
revised
15%
plan
analysis
shows
that
VOC
emissions
from
point
sources
fell
5.33
tpsd
(
55%)
between
1990
and
2005.
Table
3
below
summarizes
the
control
programs
that
affected
this
decrease
in
emissions.

Table
3:
Point
Source
Controls
for
VOC
Sources
Point
Source
Category
Rule
Implementation
Date
Federal
Approval
Chapter
129
(
Surface
Coating)
May
31,
1995
June
17,
1994
(
59
FR
31154)
15
Chapter
130
(
Solvent
Degreasers)
May
31,
1995
June
17,
1994
(
59
FR
31154)

Chapter
134
(
Non­
CTG
Sources)
May
31,
1995
April
18,
2000
(
65
FR
20749)

Bulk
Terminal
Emission
Limit
May
31,
1996
October
15,
1996
(
61
FR
53636)

Additional
information
on
each
of
these
regulations
is
available
in
the
Federal
Register
notice
that
contains
EPA's
approval
of
them.

VOC
offsets:
Maine
DEP's
revised
15%
plan
indicates
that
one
source
in
the
Portland
area,

Spinnaker
Coatings
in
Westbrook,
applied
for
and
obtained
VOC
offset
credits
in
the
amount
of
213
tons
which
could
be
used
(
emitted)
in
the
future.
To
account
for
this,
Maine
DEP
translated
these
emissions
into
what
could
be
emitted
during
a
typical
summer
day,
(
0.82
tons),
and
added
that
value
to
its
projected
2005
(
and
2007
for
its
5%
plan)
emission
estimate
from
point
sources.

b.
Area
source
controls
Maine
DEP's
revised
15%
plan
analysis
shows
that
VOC
emissions
from
area
sources
fell
8.73
tpsd
(
26%)
between
1990
and
2005,
despite
the
growth
that
occurred
in
population
and
other
activity
indicators.
The
discussion
below
summarizes
the
area
source
control
programs
that
caused
this
change
in
emissions.

Stage
I:
Maine
has
adopted
and
submitted
to
EPA
a
Stage
I
vapor
recovery
regulation
that
limits
16
VOC
emissions
from
the
filling
of
underground
storage
tanks
at
gasoline
stations.
The
rule
applies
to
facilities
with
through­
puts
that
exceed
10,000
gallons
per
month.
Chapter
118
of
the
state's
VOC
control
regulations
entitled
"
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
Vapor
Control"
was
submitted
to
EPA
on
July
11,
1994,
and
approved
as
a
revision
to
the
Maine
SIP
within
a
Federal
Register
notice
published
on
June
29,
1995
(
60
FR
33730).
The
state
projects
that
VOC
emissions
will
be
reduced
by
1.35
(
52%)
tpsd
by
this
program
between
1990
and
2005.

Stage
II:
Maine
has
adopted
and
submitted
to
EPA
a
Stage
II
vapor
recovery
regulation
that
limits
VOC
emissions
from
vehicle
refueling
activity
in
the
Portland
nonattainment
area.
Chapter
118
of
the
state's
VOC
control
regulations
entitled
"
Gasoline
Dispensing
Facilities
Vapor
Control"
was
submitted
to
EPA
on
July
26,
1995,
and
approved
as
a
revision
to
the
Maine
SIP
within
a
Federal
Register
notice
published
on
October
15,
1996
(
61
FR
53636).
The
rule
is
applicable
to
gasoline
stations
with
throughputs
greater
than
1,000,000
gallons
per
year.
Maine
used
EPA's
Mobile
6.2
program
to
calculate
emission
reductions
from
all
of
the
state's
on­
road
mobile
source
control
programs
simultaneously,
and
therefore
a
separate
amount
of
emission
reduction
credit
from
the
Stage
II
program
is
not
reported
in
the
state's
15%
SIP.

Cutback
asphalt:
Maine
has
adopted
and
submitted
to
EPA
a
cutback
asphalt
regulation
(
Chapter
131)
that
prohibits
the
use
of
cutback
asphalt
for
most
applications
during
the
ozone
season.

Maine
adopted
this
rule
on
January
6,
1993,
and
submitted
it
to
EPA
as
a
revision
to
the
state's
SIP.
EPA
approved
the
rule
as
part
of
the
state's
SIP
within
a
Federal
Register
notice
dated
June
17,
1994
(
59
FR
31154).
The
state
determined
that
emissions
were
reduced
by
7.33
tpsd
17
(
95%)
between
1990
and
2005
due
to
this
control
program.

Architectural
and
industrial
maintenance
(
AIM)
coatings:
Emission
reductions
were
taken
from
the
Architectural
and
Industrial
Maintenance
(
AIM)
surface
coating
emission
source
category
due
to
a
federal
rule
that
required
such
coatings
be
reformulated
to
emit
less
VOCs.
In
a
memo
dated
March
22,
1995,
EPA
provided
guidance
on
the
expected
reductions
from
the
national
rulemaking
on
AIM
coatings,
stating
that
emissions
would
be
reduced
by
20%.
The
state
determined
that
despite
growth
in
this
sector
between
1990
and
2005,
emissions
were
reduced
by
0.46
tpsd
(
9%)

in
the
Portland
nonattainment
area
due
to
this
federal
rule.

Automobile
refinishing:
A
November
29,
1994,
EPA
guidance
memorandum
specifies
that
states
can
assume
a
37%
control
level
for
this
source
category
due
to
a
National
rule.
The
state
projects
that
between
1990
and
2005,
the
net
effect
of
activity
growth
and
implementation
of
the
federal
rule
reduced
emissions
by
0.12
tpsd
(
20%)
in
the
Portland
nonattainment
area.

Consumer
products:
On
June
22,
1995,
EPA
issued
a
guidance
memorandum
regarding
the
regulatory
schedule
for
consumer
and
commercial
products
which
indicated
that
states
that
have
not
adopted
their
own
consumer
and
commercial
products
rule
could
take
emission
reduction
credit
from
a
pending
national
consumer
and
commercial
products
rulemaking.
After
recalculating
its
base
year
emission
estimate
to
account
for
updated
guidance
as
mentioned
earlier
in
this
document,
the
state
applied
the
recommended
control
level
of
12.5%
and
determined
that
between
1990
and
2005,
emissions
from
this
sector
actually
rose
by
0.19
tpsd
(
4%)
as
population
growth
overwhelmed
the
reductions
from
the
federal
rule.
18
c.
On­
road
mobile
source
controls
Maine
DEP
identified
and
modeled
within
its
Mobile
6.2
runs
a
number
of
state
and
federal
motor
vehicle
emission
and
fuel
control
programs
that
reduce
emissions
in
the
state.
These
control
programs
are
discussed
below.
Region
1
has
confirmed
that
Maine
correctly
modeled
these
programs
together
to
calculate
the
overall
emission
reduction
benefit
from
them.

Low
RVP
gasoline
program:
On
June
26,
1991
the
state
submitted
a
letter
from
the
Governor
requesting
that
Maine
participate
in
the
reformulated
fuels
program.
This
request
was
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
September
10,
1991,
56
FR
46119.
However,
Maine
subsequently
rescinded
its
participation
in
this
program
and
replaced
it
with
its
Chapter
119
rule,
a
low
RVP
program
which
limits
the
RVP
of
gasoline
sold
in
the
7
southern
most
Maine
counties,
including
all
of
the
Portland
1­
hour
area,
to
a
level
no
greater
than
7.8
from
May
1
to
September
15
of
each
year.
This
regulation
was
submitted
to
EPA
and
approved
into
the
state's
SIP
on
March
6,
2002
(
67
FR
10099).

Motor
vehicle
inspection
and
maintenance
(
I&
M)
program:
Maine
state
regulations
include
an
I&
M
program
which
has
minimal
requirements.
In
Cumberland
county,
the
program
requires
a
check
of
gas
cap
fitting
adequacy.
Additionally,
an
anti­
tampering
program
checks
for
any
modification
to
exhaust
catalysts
exists
in
Portland,
Sagadahoc,
and
York
counties.
Maine
adopted
its
automobile
inspection
and
maintenance
program
on
July
9,
1998,
and
submitted
it
to
EPA
as
a
revision
to
the
state's
SIP.
EPA
approved
the
program
into
the
state's
SIP
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
published
on
January
10,
2001
(
66
FR
1875).
19
Tier
I
federal
motor
vehicle
control
program:
The
EPA
promulgated
standards
for
1994
and
later
model
year
light­
duty
vehicles
and
light­
duty
trucks
(
56
FR
25724,
June
5,
1991).
Since
the
standards
were
adopted
after
the
Clean
Air
Act
amendments
of
1990,
the
resulting
emission
reductions
are
creditable
toward
the
15
percent
reduction
goal.

California
low
emission
vehicle
program:
Chapter
127
of
the
Maine
DEP
Air
rules
is
entitled
"
New
Motor
Vehicle
Emission
Standards,"
began
phasing
in
during
2001,
and
requires
the
sale
of
motor
vehicles
meeting
California
certification
standards
contained
within
Title
13
of
the
California
Code
of
Regulations
pertaining
to
emission
standards
for
motor
vehicles.
Maine
submitted
this
rule
to
EPA
as
a
revision
to
the
state's
SIP
on
February
25,
2004.
EPA
approved
the
program
into
the
Maine
SIP
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
April
28,

2005
(
70
FR
21959).

Onboard
vapor
recovery
systems:
This
is
a
federal
program
required
by
section
202(
a)(
6)
of
the
1990
CAAA.
For
passenger
cars,
the
onboard
control
requirements
will
be
phased
in
over
three
model
years
with
40
percent,
80
percent,
and
100
percent
of
new
car
production
being
required
to
meet
the
standard
in
model
years
1998,
1999,
and
2000,
respectively.
The
phase­
in
of
onboard
controls
for
light
trucks
will
follow
the
phase­
in
period
for
cars.
Onboard
controls
for
the
lighter
class
of
light
trucks
(
those
under
6000
pounds
GVWR)
will
be
phased
in
during
models
years
2001
through
2003,
while
onboard
controls
for
the
heavier
light
trucks
(
those
from
6001
through
8500
pounds
GVWR)
will
be
phased
in
during
models
years
2004
through
2006.
When
fully
phased
in,
the
new
controls
will
capture
95
percent
of
refueling
emissions.
20
d.
Nonroad
mobile
source
controls
EPA
has
established
emission
standards
for
a
variety
of
non­
road
engine
categories
that
will
reduce
ozone
precursor
emissions
over
the
time
period
covered
by
the
Maine
15%
plan.
These
standards
affect
heavy
duty
compression
ignition
(
diesel)
engines,
small
non­
road
spark­
ignition
(
gasoline)
engines,
large
non­
road
gasoline
engines,
gasoline
powered
outboard
and
personal
water­
craft
engines,
commercial
diesel
marine
engines,
recreational
stern­
drive
and
inboard
engines,
and
locomotives.
Detailed
information
regarding
each
of
these
emission
control
programs
is
available
on
EPA's
web­
site
at:
www.
epa.
gov/
otaq.

EPA
has
also
created
a
draft
nonroad
air
emissions
estimation
model
that
can
be
used
to
calculate
emissions
from
all
nonroad
engines
except
those
used
to
power
aircraft,
locomotives,
and
large
commercial
marine
vessels,
for
the
present
year,
and
for
past
or
future
years.
Maine
DEP
used
the
Nonroad
Model
to
calculate
air
emissions
from
this
sector
in
the
Portland
area.
Region
1
has
reviewed
and
confirmed
the
emission
estimates
for
nonroad
engines
Maine
has
used
in
its
revised
inventories
and
ROP
plans.

4.
Contingency
measures
On
April
30th,
2004,
EPA
published
a
final
rule
(
the
"
Phase
1"
rule),
which
included
provisions
for
revoking
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard
one­
year
from
the
effective
date
of
the
designations
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
This
requirement
is
codified
in
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
at
40
CFR
Part
50.9(
b).
Prior
to
revocation,
ozone
nonattainment
areas
classified
as
moderate
or
above
were
required
to
include
in
their
submittals
under
section
172(
b)
of
the
CAA,
contingency
21
measures
to
be
implemented
if
ROP
was
not
achieved
or
if
the
standard
is
not
attained
by
the
applicable
date.
However,
on
May
26,
2005,
EPA
published
a
final
rule
(
70
FR
30592)
that,
in
light
of
the
revocation
of
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard,
removed
the
requirement
that
contingency
plans
be
adopted
for
ROP
plans
submitted
to
make
progress
toward
achievement
of
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard.
Accordingly,
Maine­
DEP's
revised
15%
ROP
plan
does
not
contain
contingency
measures.

C.
5%
Increment
of
Progress
Plan
1.
Background
On
July
18,
1997,
EPA
promulgated
a
new
NAAQS
for
ozone
based
on
an
8­
hour
averaging
period.
Court
challenges
to
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
delayed
implementation
of
it,
but
were
eventually
resolved
and
on
April
30,
2004,
EPA
promulgated
designations
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
in
the
Federal
Register
(
69
FR
23858).
The
effective
date
for
the
designations
was
June
15,
2004.
Portions
of
Maine
were
designated
nonattainment
for
this
standard,
including
the
Portland
8­
hour
area
which
was
classified
as
a
marginal
nonattainment
area.
The
Portland
8­
hour
marginal
nonattainment
area
consists
of
Sagadahoc
county,
most
portions
of
Cumberland
and
York
counties,
and
one
town
in
Androscoggin
county.
As
such,
it
differs
geographically
from
the
Portland
1­
hour
nonattainment
area,
as
that
area
consists
of
Cumberland,
Sagadahoc,
and
York
counties
in
their
entirety.

On
April
30,
2004,
EPA
also
published
the
first
part
of
its
rule
governing
implementation
of
the
8­

hour
ozone
standard
(
69
FR
23951).
Although
this
rule
dealt
primarily
with
issues
pertaining
to
the
new
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
it
included
some
provisions
relevant
to
the
one­
hour
ozone
22
NAAQS.
Of
particular
interest
to
Maine
was
a
provision
allowing
one­
hour
areas
with
unmet
attainment
demonstration
obligations
to
submit,
in
lieu
of
a
full
one­
hour
ozone
attainment
demonstration,
an
early
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
toward
achievement
of
the
8­
hour
standard.
Such
plans
would
need
to
be
submitted
no
later
than
one
year
from
the
effective
date
of
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
meaning
by
no
later
than
June
15,
2005.
Maine's
Portland
one­
hour
nonattainment
area
has
an
unmet
attainment
demonstration
obligation,
and
so
Maine
DEP
decided
to
prepare
a
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
to
meet
its
unmet
one­
hour
attainment
demonstration
obligation.
Accordingly,
Maine's
June
9,
2005
SIP
revision
request
to
EPA
included
a
5%

increment
of
progress
plan.

The
geographic
area
covered
by
the
Portland
8­
hour
area
is
smaller
than
the
area
covered
by
the
Portland
1­
hour
area
in
that
it
only
includes
portions
of
Cumberland
and
York
counties,
whereas
the
1­
hour
area
covers
these
two
counties
entirely
(
plus
all
of
Sagadahoc
county).
Given
the
difficulties
of
SIP
planning
activities
at
a
sub­
county
level,
in
particular
preparation
of
emission
inventories
at
a
sub­
county
level,
Maine
DEP
developed
its
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
such
that
it
covers
all
of
the
old
one­
hour
nonattainment
area.
As
such
it
covers
a
larger
area
and
plans
for
more
emission
reductions
than
is
required,
even
though
one
town,
the
town
of
Durham
in
Androscoggin
county,
is
not
covered
by
the
plan.
EPA
worked
closely
with
the
Maine
DEP
in
development
of
this
plan,
and
we
believe
that
the
geographic
area
Maine
DEP
chose
to
cover
in
its
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
is
appropriate
and
reasonable.
We
believe
this
to
be
so
because
the
mix
of
stationary
and
mobile
emission
sources
is
fairly
uniform
across
the
area,
and
so
the
net
result
of
expansion
of
the
geographic
area
is
primarily
an
increase
in
the
amount
of
emission
reductions
that
must
be
planned
for.
23
2
"
Guidance
on
5%
Increment
of
Progress"
(
40
CFR
51.905(
a)(
1)(
ii));
dated
August
18,
2004;
from
Lydia
Wegman,
Director,
OAQPS,
to
EPA
Regional
Air
Directors.
Given
the
difficulty
and
additional
uncertainty
introduced
by
developing
emission
inventories
at
the
sub­
county
level,
it
is
not
likely
that
doing
so
would
produce
data
that
would
improve
our
decision
making
ability.
Accordingly,
as
mentioned
above
we
believe
that
Maine
DEP's
use
of
full
county
emission
inventories
is
appropriate.
However,
transportation
conformity
budgets
need
to
match
the
exact
geographic
borders
of
the
nonattainment
area
they
are
associated
with.
Since
development
of
on­
road
mobile
source
emission
estimates
at
the
sub­
county
level
is
not
unduly
burdensome,
and
critical
for
transportation
conformity
purposes,
Maine
DEP's
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
contains
on­
road
mobile
source
inventories
for
2007
that
exactly
match
the
geographic
area
of
its
8­
hour
nonattainment
area.

2.
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
requirements
EPA
issued
a
guidance
memorandum2
on
August
18,
2004
which
outlines
the
criteria
for
5%

increment
of
progress
plans.
In
brief
summary,
the
guidance
requires
the
emission
reduction
be
based
on
a
2002
inventory,
does
not
allow
credit
from
federal
measures
or
measures
already
in
the
SIP
as
of
2002,
requires
that
the
reduction
occur
by
2007,
and
allows
use
of
VOC,
NOx,
or
some
combination
of
both
pollutants.
The
steps
involved
in
determining
the
magnitude
of
the
emission
reductions
needed
to
meet
the
5%
plan
obligation
are
outlined
below.

Step
1:
Establish
2002
emissions
baseline
The
first
step
in
this
calculation
is
the
establishment
of
a
2002
emissions
baseline.
Although
24
EPA's
August
18,
2004
guidance
allows
states
to
use
EPA's
draft
2002
National
Emissions
Inventory
(
NEI)
for
the
2002
baseline,
Maine
DEP
provided
a
better
2002
emissions
baseline
by
developing
their
own
2002
inventory.
This
inventory
includes
better
activity
data
in
many
instances
than
what
is
available
in
EPA's
NEI.
Maine's
2002
inventory
of
ozone
precursors
for
the
full
3
county
area
is
shown
below
in
Table
4
by
major
source
category.

Table
4:
2002
Anthropogenic
Emissions
for
the
Portland
Area
Major
Source
Category
2002
VOC
Emissions
(
tpsd)
2002
NOx
Emissions
(
tpsd)

Point
3.29
13.08
Area
23.65
1.89
On­
road
30.94
61.20
Off­
road
16.59
13.23
Com.
marine,
rail,
and
aircraft
0.45
2.33
Total
74.90
91.70
Step
2:
Calculate
5%
reduction
EPA's
August
18,
2004
5%
plan
guidance
allows
the
5%
reduction
to
be
made
from
only
VOC
emission
reductions,
only
NOx
reductions,
or
from
a
combination
of
VOC
and
NOx
reductions
which
in
total
equal
5%.
Maine
DEP
chose
to
demonstrate
it
could
meet
the
5%
emission
reduction
requirement
by
relying
exclusively
on
VOC
emission
reductions.
Therefore,
its
emission
reduction
obligation
is
calculated
as
follows:
0.05
*
74.90
=
3.75
tpsd
of
VOC
emissions.
25
Step
3:
Project
emissions
to
2007
The
third
step
in
the
5%
calculation
is
to
develop
a
2007
inventory
that
reflects
growth
and
controls
from
measures
already
in
the
SIP
or
expected
to
occur
due
to
federal
measures.
Maine
DEP
prepared
its
projected
2007
inventory
for
the
three
county
Portland
area
in
a
manner
similar
to
the
way
it
prepared
its
2005
projected
inventory
as
described
in
section
2.
g
of
this
document.

Table
5
below
shows
Maine's
2002
baseline
and
projected
2007
emissions
inventory
for
VOCs.

Table
5:
2002
and
2007
VOC
Emissions
by
Major
Source
Category
Major
Source
Category
2002
VOC
Emissions
(
tpsd)
2007
VOC
Emissions
(
tpsd)

Point
3.29
4.0
Area
23.65
25.52
On­
road
30.94
20.48
Off­
road
16.59
14.21
Commercial
Marine,
Rail,
and
Aircraft
0.45
0.5
Total
74.90
64.73
Step
4:
Determine
emissions
target
In
Step
4,
the
required
5%
emission
reduction
of
3.75
tpsd
is
subtracted
from
the
projected
2007
emission
inventory
of
64.73
tpsd,
establishing
an
emissions
target
level
of
60.98
tpsd
for
2007.

Maine's
5%
plan
demonstrates
that
it
will
meet
this
target
by
reducing
the
area
source
inventory
by
4.47
tpsd,
taking
it
from
25.52
tpsd
down
to
21.05.
This
will
reduce
the
overall
inventory
similarly,
taking
it
from
64.73
tpsd
to
60.26
tpsd,
which
is
0.72
tpsd
below
the
target
level
of
26
emissions.

Step
5:
Compare
2007
to
2002
inventory
The
final
step
in
the
5%
calculation
is
to
ensure
that
the
2007
projected,
controlled
inventory
is
5%
lower
than
the
2002
emissions
baseline.
This
step
is
required
because
in
a
rapidly
growing
area,
a
large
increment
of
growth
could
conceivably
overwhelm
the
5%
emission
reduction,
and
the
reductions
from
already
scheduled
SIP
and
federal
control
programs.
This
is
not
the
case
in
Maine,
however,
as
the
projected,
controlled
2007
emission
level
of
60.26
tpsd
is
almost
20%

lower
than
2002
emissions.

3.
Evaluation
of
control
measures
Maine
DEP's
5%
plan
demonstrates
that
it
will
achieve
the
required
level
of
emission
reductions
via
adoption
of
four
VOC
emission
control
measures
that
are
based
on
model
rules
developed
by
the
Ozone
Transport
Commission
(
OTC).
The
four
rules
apply
to
small
source
solvent
cleaners
(
degreasers),
architectural
and
industrial
maintenance
(
AIM)
coatings,
consumer
and
commercial
products,
and
mobile
equipment
repair
and
refinishing.
Several
of
these
rules
require
control
measures
beyond
those
already
required
by
the
corresponding
federal
measures
relied
on
in
Maine's
15%
plan.
Each
of
these
rules,
and
the
emission
reductions
anticipated
from
them,
are
discussed
below.

a.
Chapter
130
solvent
cleaning
rule:
This
regulation
establishes
requirements
for
testing,

evaluating,
and
limiting
VOCs
from
solvent
cleaning
machines
and
sets
minimum
requirements
for
equipment
and
operation
standards
in
order
to
reduce
VOC
emissions.
Maine
used
a
control
27
3
E.
H.
Pechan
and
Associates,
"
Control
Measures
Development
Support
Analysis
of
Ozone
Transport
Commission
Model
Rules,"
March
31,
2001.
factor
of
66%
as
recommended
in
a
report
by
E.
H.
Pechan
and
associates3
in
work
done
for
the
OTC.
Facilities
were
required
to
comply
with
the
rule
by
January
1,
2005,
and
Maine
DEP
expects
it
to
produce
2.57
tpsd
in
emission
reductions.
EPA
approved
this
rule
into
the
state's
SIP
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
May
26,
2005
(
70
FR
30367).

b.
Chapter
151
AIM
coatings
rule:
Chapter
151
establishes
limits
for
emissions
of
VOCs
from
51
AIM
coating
categories.
Compliance
with
the
rule
will
be
required
as
of
January
1,
2006,
and
Maine
DEP
expects
it
to
produce
0.99
tpsd
in
emission
reductions
beyond
the
reductions
already
achieved
by
the
federal
program.
However,
Maine
DEP
will
need
to
adjust
the
credit
claimed
for
AIM
reductions
downward
to
reflect
recent
revisions
to
its
Chapter
151
rule.
Specifically,
the
proposal
contains
a
new,
less
stringent,
emission
limit
for
interior
wood
clear
and
semitransparent
stains.
The
proposal
also
includes
a
less
stringent
2006
emission
limit
for
varnishes
(
although
by
2011
varnishes
are
required
to
meet
the
same
limit
as
in
the
existing
rule).
These
revisions
will
impact
the
emission
reductions
Maine
achieves
from
the
implementation
of
Chapter
151
by
2007.

However,
given
that
Maine's
5%
plan
currently
includes
0.72
tpsd
of
surplus
credits,
it
appears
that
even
with
these
adjustments,
Maine
will
be
able
to
meet
its
5%
plan
target.

Additionally,
in
the
August
31,
2005
Federal
Register
(
70
FR
51694)
EPA
published
a
notice
soliciting
comments,
data
and
information
with
regard
to
calculation
of
emission
reductions
from
AIM
coating
rules.
Therefore,
future
adjustments
may
also
need
to
be
made
to
Maine's
credit
claim
from
this
rule.
However,
EPA
has
analyzed
the
emission
credit
claims
made
by
states
that
28
have
adopted
AIM
rules
based
on
the
OTC's
model
rule,
and
determined
a
35%
post
federal
AIM
rule
reduction
factor
is
currently
the
most
appropriate
reduction
factor
to
use.
Maine
DEP
used
the
35%
post
federal
rule
reduction
factor
in
its
AIM
credit
calculation.
EPA
has
not
yet
approved
this
rule
into
the
state's
SIP.
Therefore,
emission
reduction
credit
will
only
be
granted
to
Maine
for
reductions
from
this
rule
if
EPA
approves
it
into
the
state's
SIP
on
or
before
the
date
final
action
is
taken
on
Maine's
5%
increment
of
progress
plan.
On
December
15,
2005,
EPA
publised
a
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
70
FR
74259)
that
proposes
approval
of
Maine's
AIM
coatings
rule.
The
comment
period
for
that
proposed
rule
ends
January
17,
2006.

c.
Chapter
152
consumer
and
commercial
products
rule:
This
regulation
limits
emissions
of
VOC
from
consumer
products
by
establishing
emission
limits
for
consumer
product
source
categories.

Compliance
with
the
rule
was
required
by
May
1,
2005,
and
Maine
DEP
expects
it
to
produce
0.72
tpsd
in
emission
reductions
in
the
three
county
area
beyond
the
reductions
already
achieved
by
the
federal
program.
EPA
approved
this
rule
into
the
state's
SIP
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
October
24,
2005
(
70
FR
61382).

d.
Chapter
153
mobile
equipment
repair
and
refinishing
rule:
This
regulation
limits
emissions
of
VOCs
from
mobile
equipment
refinishing
and
repair
facilities
by
limiting
the
VOC
content
of
coatings,
by
requiring
the
use
of
high
efficiency
coating
application
systems,
and
through
work
practice
standards.
Maine
used
a
control
factor
of
38%
as
recommended
in
the
previously
mentioned
report
by
E.
H.
Pechan.
This
38%
emission
reduction
is
above
and
beyond
the
emission
reductions
achieved
from
this
sector
by
an
earlier
federal
rule.
Facilities
were
required
to
comply
with
the
rule
by
January
1,
2005,
and
Maine
DEP
expects
it
to
produce
0.19
tpsd
in
29
emission
reductions
in
the
three
county
area.
EPA
approved
this
rule
into
the
state's
SIP
in
a
final
rule
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
May
26,
2005
(
70
FR
30367).

D.
Transportation
conformity
budgets
Maine's
5%
increment
of
progress
plan
contains
projected,
controlled
emission
levels
for
on­
road
mobile
sources
for
2007.
Although
the
15%
plan
also
contains
projected,
controlled
emission
levels,
they
are
for
2005,
and
are
geographically
matched
to
the
full
county
Portland
one­
hour
nonattainment
area.
EPA
revoked
the
one­
hour
ozone
standard
on
June
15,
2005.
Therefore,
the
on­
road
mobile
source
VOC
and
NOx
emissions
estimates
for
2007
contained
in
Maine's
5%

increment
of
progress
plan
will
establish
a
transportation
conformity
budget,
and
the
2005
onroad
mobile
estimates
in
the
15%
plan
will
not.

Although
Maine
DEP
prepared
its
base
year
and
future
year
inventories
at
the
full
county
level,

the
state
included
in
its
5%
plan
a
2007
emission
estimate
for
on­
road
mobile
sources
for
the
exact
geographic
area
that
comprises
the
Portland
8­
hour
nonattainment
area.
These
2007
emission
estimates
establish
transportation
conformity
budgets,
and
they
are
as
follows:
for
VOCs,
20.115
tpsd,
and
for
NOx,
39.893
tpsd.

In
the
August
30,
2005
Federal
Register
(
70
FR
51353)
EPA
published
a
notice
of
adequacy
determination
for
the
above
transportation
conformity
budgets.
These
budgets
were
calculated
in
accordance
with
standard
EPA
methods,
and
should
be
approved
into
the
state's
SIP
along
with
the
5%
increment
of
progress
plan.
30
III.
PROPOSED
ACTION:
EPA's
review
of
this
material
indicates
that
Maine
has
prepared
these
emission
inventories,
emission
reduction
plans,
and
transportation
conformity
budgets
in
accordance
with
EPA
methods
and
guidance.
EPA
is
proposing
to
approve
Maine's
15%
rate
of
progress
plan
and
associated
revised
1990
inventory,
and
also
proposing
approval
of
the
state's
5%
increment
of
progress
plan,
2002
base
year
inventory,
and
transportation
conformity
budgets
for
2007
for
VOC
and
NOx
for
the
Portland
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
area
as
a
revision
to
the
state's
SIP.
These
SIP
revisions
were
submitted
to
EPA
on
June
9,
13,
and
14,
2005.
EPA
is
soliciting
public
comments
on
the
issues
discussed
in
this
notice
or
on
other
relevant
matters.

These
comments
will
be
considered
before
EPA
takes
final
action.
Interested
parties
may
participate
in
the
Federal
rulemaking
procedure
by
submitting
written
comments
to
the
EPA
New
England
Regional
Office
listed
in
the
ADDRESSES
section
of
this
action,
or
by
submitting
comments
electronically,
by
mail,
or
through
hand
delivery/
courier
following
the
directions
in
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION,
I.
General
Information
section
of
this
action
.

IV.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
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.
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
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
31
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).

This
rule
also
does
not
have
tribal
implications
because
it
will
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).
This
action
also
does
not
have
federalism
implications
because
it
does
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
"
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks"(
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,
32
15%,
5%
Reduction
Plans;
Maine
pg.
32
of
32
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.

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.)

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
52
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Nitrogen
dioxide,
Ozone,
Volatile
organic
compounds.

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

_______________________
___________________________

Dated:
Robert
W.
Varney,

Regional
Administrator,

EPA
New
England.