[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 121 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33999-34007]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-16510]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[VA045-5022; FRL-5846-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; 15% Rate of Progress Plan for the Northern Virginia Portion
of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional interim approval of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of
Virginia, for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan
Washington D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area, to meet the 15
percent reasonable further progress (RFP, or 15% plan) requirements of
the Clean Air Act (the Act). EPA is granting conditional interim
approval of the 15% plan, submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia,
because on its face the plan achieves the required 15% emission
reduction, but additional documentation to verify the emission
calculations is necessary for full approval. Additionally, the plan
relies upon the Virginia Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) rule that
received final conditional interim approval on May 15, 1997 (62 FR
26745). This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 24, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents relevant to this action are
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19107; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at
215-566-2092 or via e-mail, at the following address:
gaffney.kristeen@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires ozone nonattainment areas
classified as
[[Page 34000]]
moderate or above to develop plans to reduce volatile organic compounds
(VOC) emissions by fifteen percent from 1990 baseline levels. The
Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area is classified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area and is subject to the 15% plan requirement. The
Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area consists of the
entire District of Columbia (``the District''), five counties in the
Northern Virginia area and five counties in Maryland. The Northern
Virginia portion of the nonattainment area consists of the localities
of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford, and the
cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and
Fairfax.
Virginia, Maryland and the District all must demonstrate reasonable
further progress for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment
area. Virginia, Maryland and the District, in conjunction with
municipal planning organizations, collaborated on a coordinated 15%
plan for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area. This was
done with the assistance of the regional air quality planning
committee, the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC),
and the local municipal planning organization, the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), to ensure coordination of
air quality and transportation planning.
The Commonwealth of Virginia submitted the 15% plan SIP revision
for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C.
nonattainment area on May 15, 1995. On March 12, 1997, EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register proposing
conditional interim approval of the 15% plan (62 FR 11395). EPA's
rationale for granting conditional interim approval to the Virginia 15%
plan for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area and the
details of the May 15, 1995 submittal are contained in the March 12,
1997 NPR, the accompanying technical support document and will not be
restated here. There is an addendum to the technical support document
dated June 9, 1997 available from the Regional Office listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received two letters in response to the March 12, 1997 NPR from
the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The following
discussion summarizes and responds to the comments received.
Comment 1
SCLDF commented that the Virginia 15% plan must be disapproved
because it failed to produce the 15% emission reduction of 59.9 tons/
day identified in the plan as prescribed by section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) of
the Act. EPA's argument that it believes that Virginia's required 15%
reduction ``may be lower than the 54.4 tons per day'' is flawed.
Speculation is no substitute for the findings EPA must make under
sections 110 and 182 of the Act in order to approve the SIP.
Furthermore, EPA admits that proper documentation is lacking in the
submittal. Lack of documentation and information are grounds for
disapproval.
Response: Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally
approve a plan based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific
enforceable measures within one year from the date of approval. EPA
believes that the 15% required reduction in the Northern Virginia
portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area may be
lower than the 59.9 tons/day estimated in the May 15, 1995 SIP
submittal based on new information supplied by the Commonwealth.
Although this information has not been established through an official
SIP submittal, this information is contained in Virginia's rate-of-
progress SIP for the 1996-1999 time period (known as the Post 1996
plan). Virginia has held a public hearing on this SIP, which EPA
provided comments on for the public record, and expects to submit it to
EPA shortly. Under these circumstances--including the fact that the
amount of emissions at issue is a relatively small percentage of the
15% requirement--EPA has the authority to conditionally approve
Virginia's 15% SIP, on the condition that Virginia submit the requisite
documentation. The Commonwealth of Virginia has agreed to meet this
condition to document that the amount of reduction needed to meet the
15% requirement is less than 54.4 tons/day, and has submitted such
commitment in writing.
Comment 2
The inspection and maintenance (I/M) program currently in the 15%
plan and estimated to achieve 23.7 tons/day reduction was renounced by
Virginia. The current Virginia I/M program under the National Highway
Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) is not properly before EPA in
the 15% plan.
Response: Virginia never adopted the former I/M program that was
described in the 15% plan and, instead, Virginia resubmitted a new I/M
program under the NHSDA on March 27, 1996. On May 15, 1997, EPA granted
conditional interim approval of Virginia's I/M program in the Virginia
SIP (62 FR 26745). Although the SIP approved I/M program differs from
the program referred to in Virginia's current 15% plan, EPA has
determined that the two programs achieve a similar amount of VOC
reduction credit. In approving the credits from I/M toward the 15%
requirement, EPA is considering the SIP approved version of the I/M
program. Furthermore, under the NHSDA, all states including Virginia
are required to remodel the credits achieved from their I/M program 18
months following program implementation. Full approval of the Virginia
15% plan is also conditioned on this demonstration of credit through
remodeling. The 24.6 tons/day reduction claimed in the May 15, 1995 15%
plan submittal is, therefore, granted only conditional interim approval
until the demonstration required under NHSDA is submitted by Virginia.
Comment 3
SCLDF commented that EPA cannot ignore the November 15, 1996
statutory deadline for the 15% reduction simply because the deadline is
now behind us. It contends that EPA's and states' unlawful delays have
prevented compliance with the November 15, 1996 deadline and that EPA
cannot now jettison the statutory deadlines by substituting the ``as
soon as practicable'' test; rather, SCLDF states, EPA must require
compliance with an ``as soon as possible'' test and fix a compliance
deadline. The commenter cited various court decisions in an effort to
support its formulation of the ``as soon as possible'' test. SCLDF
further added that 1999 cannot be the shortest possible timeframe for
requiring compliance with I/M in Virginia because Pennsylvania has
shown and EPA approved that it will achieve the needed I/M reductions
by 1998.
Response: The case law cited by the commenter considers various
circumstances, such as failure by EPA to promulgate rules on the
statutorily mandated deadline or to take action on state failures to
make SIP submissions on the statutorily mandated deadline. See, e.g.,
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.
1994), Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C.
Cir. 1975). These cases articulate various formulations of the
standards by which the courts establish new deadlines. EPA believes
that its formulation of the
[[Page 34001]]
standard by which States must achieve the 15% reductions--``as soon as
practicable''--is generally consistent with the case law.
Further, EPA believes that Virginia has demonstrated that it has
met this standard. The notice of proposed rulemaking, the TSD
accompanying that proposal, and an addendum to the TSD in the record
establish that implementation of the I/M program is as soon as
practicable. The main reason for the delays in the development and
implementation of Virginia's 15% SIP relate to its enhanced I/M plan.
Most recently, these enhanced I/M delays were closely associated with
the enactment, in November 1995, of the NHSDA. The NHSDA afforded
states the opportunity to revise their I/M plans in a manner that would
be treated as meeting certain EPA requirements on an interim basis. The
NHSDA provided additional time for the Commonwealth and EPA to develop
and process the revised I/M plans. The Commonwealth acted expeditiously
in developing and implementing a revised enhanced I/M program. However,
the amount of time necessary to develop and implement the NHSDA I/M
program rendered impossible achieving the 15% reduction target by the
end of 1996.
Moreover, EPA has reviewed other VOC SIP measures that are at least
theoretically available to Virginia, and has concluded that
implementation of any such measures that might be appropriate would not
accelerate the date of achieving the 15% reductions.
EPA agrees with the commenter that in this particular case a fixed
deadline is appropriate. Accordingly, EPA will establish November 15,
1999, as the date by which the 15% measures must be implemented to the
extent necessary to generate the required amount of reductions.
The fact that Pennsylvania has developed an I/M program that will
be implemented by the end of 1998 does not mean that Virginia's
implementation date of the end of 1999 is not as soon as practicable.
For reasons indicated elsewhere in the record, EPA considers the
biennial I/M program selected by Virginia to be as soon as practicable,
notwithstanding the fact that other states may choose to implement an
annual program. An annual program carries certain practicability
problems that EPA has identified elsewhere in the record.
Comment 4
SCLDF commented that any further delays in implementing VOC control
measures, including most prominently, enhanced I/M, must not be
tolerated. For I/M, EPA's deadline must require implementation in the
shortest time in which it is logistically possible to get the testing
systems up and running. The NHSDA does not mention the 15% plan or
authorize any delay of the achievement of the 15% emission reduction.
Furthermore, missing the November 15, 1996 deadline unlawfully rewards
states for failure to meet the deadline by giving them increased
credits under national programs such as the Tier I Federal Motor
Vehicle Control Program. SCLDF argues that such an approach unlawfully
delays the achievement of clean air by allowing the states to reduce
their own emission control efforts by the amount of the post-November
1996 fleet turnover benefits. Consequently, EPA must deny the post-
November 1996 Tier I credit and require states to adopt emission
reductions to compensate for post-1996 growth in vehicle miles traveled
(VMT).
SCLDF further argues that EPA cannot delay the section 182(b)(1)
requirement for states to account for growth in the 15% plans to the
Post 1996 rate-of-progress plans, particularly because the Post 1996
plans involve potential NOX substitution that is not
permitted in the VOC-only 15% plans.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. The NHSDA was enacted by
Congress in November of 1995. Section 348 of this statute provided
states' renewed opportunity to satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements
related to the network design for I/M programs. States were not only
granted the flexibility to enact test-and-repair programs, but were
provided additional time to develop those programs and to submit
proposed regulations for interim SIP approval. Virginia moved rapidly
to propose I/M regulations and to submit to EPA on March 27, 1996 a SIP
containing those regulations, under the authority granted by the NHSDA.
Under the terms of the 15% requirement in section 182(b)(1)(A)(i)
of the Act, the SIP must--``provide for [VOC] emission reductions,
within 6 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions,
accounting for any growth in emissions after [1990].''
EPA interprets this provision to require that a specific amount of
VOC reductions occur, and has issued guidance for computing this
amount. The Commonwealth, complying with this guidance, has determined
the amount of the required VOC reductions needed to meet the 15% goal.
It is no longer possible for the Commonwealth to implement measures to
achieve this level of reduction as the November 15, 1996 date provided
under the 15% provisions has passed. Accordingly, EPA believes that the
Commonwealth will comply with the statutory mandate as long as Virginia
achieves the requisite level of reductions on an as-soon-as-practicable
basis after 1996. In computing the reductions, EPA believes it
acceptable for states to count reductions from federal measures, such
as vehicle turnover, that occur after November 15, 1996, as long as
they are measures that would be creditable had they occurred prior to
that date. These measures result in VOC emission reductions as directed
by Congress in the Act; therefore, these measures should count towards
the achievement--however delayed--of the 15% VOC reduction goal.
EPA does not believe states are obligated as part of the 15% SIP to
implement further VOC reductions to offset increases in VOC emissions
due to post-1996 growth. As noted above, the 15% requirement mandates a
specific level of reductions. By counting the reductions that occur
through measures implemented pre- and post-1996, SIPs may achieve this
level of reductions. Although section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), quoted above,
mandates that the SIPs account for growth after 1990, the provision
does not, by its terms, establish a mechanism for how to account for
growth, or indicate whether, under the present circumstances, post-1996
growth must be accounted for. EPA believes that its current
requirements for the 15% SIPs meet section 182(b)(1)(A)(i). In
addition, although post-1996 VOC growth is not offset under the 15%
SIPs, such growth must be offset in the Post 1996 plans required for
serious and higher classified areas to achieve 9% in VOC reductions
every three years after 1996 (until the attainment date). Virginia's
Post 1996 plan for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan
Washington D.C. area, which is nearing completion, does appear to
achieve the 9% emissions reductions required between 1996 and 1999,
taking into account growth in VOCs during that time. The fact that
these Post 1996 SIPs may substitute NOX reductions for VOC
reductions in the 1996 to 1999 period does not undermine the integrity
of the 15% SIPs. Allowing NOX substitution is fully
consistent with the health goals of the Clean Air Act.
Under EPA's approach, post-1996 growth will be accounted for in the
plans that Congress intended to take account of such growth--the Post
1996 ``rate of progress'' SIPs. To shift the burden of accounting for
such growth to the 15% plans, as commenters would have EPA do, would
impose burdens on
[[Page 34002]]
states above and beyond what Congress contemplated would be imposed by
the 15% requirement (which was intended to have been achieved by
November 15, 1996). In the current situation, where it is clearly
impossible to achieve the target level of VOC reductions (a 15%
reduction taking into account growth through November 1996) by November
1996, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable and appropriate
one. It will still mean that post-1996 growth is taken into account in
the SIP revisions Congress intended to take into account such growth
and it means that the target level of VOC reductions will be achieved
as soon as practicable. Once the Post 1996 rate of progress plans are
approved and implemented, areas will have achieved the same level of
progress that they were required to have achieved through the
combination of the 15% and rate of progress requirements as originally
intended by Congress.
Comment 5
The commenter notes a discrepancy on the bottom of page 11401 of
the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA asserted it's belief that the
Virginia I/M program ``will achieve 24.6 tons/day of reductions by
1997''. This is unrealistic given that EPA states elsewhere in the
notice that the Virginia I/M program is not starting up until November
1997.
Response: The commenter is correct. The notice of proposed
rulemaking contained a typographical error in that the year should have
read 1999 instead of 1997. This statement in the proposed rulemaking is
corrected and revised to read: ``Because Virginia's revised enhanced I/
M program is designed to meet EPA's high-enhanced performance standard
and will achieve essentially the same number of testing cycles between
start-up and November 1999 as that modeled in the original 15% plan,
EPA believes that Virginia's program will achieve 24.6 tons/day of
reductions by 1999.''
Comment 6
SCLDF commented that the Virginia 15% plan, which takes credit for
federal control measures such as architectural and industrial
maintenance coating, consumer/commercial products and autobody
refinishing, should not be approved because those federal control
measures have not yet been promulgated. SCLDF states that allowing such
credit violates section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act. SCLDF further
commented that EPA cannot lawfully base SIP decisions on unpromulgated
rules because it does not know what these final rules will say. SCLDF
contends that allowing credit on as yet unpromulgated rules, even with
the caveat that the states must revisit the rule later if the federal
rules turn out differently than predicted, amounts to an unlawful
extension of a SIP submission deadline. SCLDF stated that EPA must base
its decision on the record before it at the time of its decision; not
on some record that the agency hopes will exist in the future.
Response: Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires states to submit
their 15% SIP revisions by November, 1993. Section 182(b)(1)(C) of the
Act provides the following general rule for creditability of emissions
reductions towards the 15% requirement: ``Emissions reductions are
creditable toward the 15 percent required * * * to the extent they have
actually occurred, as of (November, 1996), from the implementation of
measures required under the applicable implementation plan, rules
promulgated by the Administrator, or a permit under Title V.''
This provision further indicates that certain emissions reductions
are not creditable, including reductions from certain control measures
required prior to the 1990 Amendments.
This creditability provision is ambiguous. Read literally, it
provides that although the 15% SIPs are required to be submitted by
November 1993, emissions reductions are creditable as part of those
SIPs only if ``they have actually occurred, as of (November 1996)''.
This literal reading renders the provision internally inconsistent.
Accordingly, EPA believes that the provision should be interpreted to
provide, in effect, that emissions reductions are creditable ``to the
extent they will have actually occurred, as of (November, 1996), from
the implementation of (the specified measures)'' (the term ``will'' is
added). This interpretation renders the provision internally
consistent.
Sec. 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act explicitly includes as creditable
reductions those resulting from ``rules promulgated by the
Administrator''. This provision does not state the date by which those
measures must be promulgated, i.e., does not indicate whether the
measures must be promulgated by the time the 15% SIPs were due
(November, 1993), or whether the measures may be promulgated after this
due date.
Because the statute is silent on this point, EPA has discretion to
develop a reasonable interpretation, under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC,
467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). EPA believes it
reasonable to interpret section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act to credit
reductions from federal measures as long as those reductions are
expected to occur by November 1996, even if the Federal measures are
not promulgated by the November 1993 due date for the 15% SIPs.
EPA's interpretation is consistent with the congressionally
mandated schedule for promulgating regulations for consumer and
commercial products, under section 182(e) of the Act. This provision
requires EPA to promulgate regulations controlling emissions from
consumer and commercial products that generate emissions in
nonattainment areas. Under the schedule, by November 1993--the same
date that the States were required to submit the 15% SIPs--EPA was to
issue a report and establish a rulemaking schedule for consumer and
commercial products. Further, EPA was to promulgate regulations for the
first set of consumer and commercial products by November, 1995. It is
reasonable to conclude that Congress anticipated that reductions from
these measures would be creditable as part of the 15% SIPs, as long as
those reductions were to occur by November, 1996.
Crediting reductions from federal measures promulgated after the
due date for the 15% SIPs is also sensible from an administrative
standpoint. Crediting the reductions allows the states to plan
accurately to meet the 15% reduction target from the appropriate level
of state and federal measures. Not crediting such reductions would mean
that the states would have to implement additional control requirements
to reach the 15% mark; and that SIPs would result in more than a 15%
level of reductions once the federal measures in question were
promulgated and implemented. At that point in time, the state may seek
to eliminate those additional SIP measures on grounds that they would
no longer be necessary to reach the 15% level. Such constant revisions
to the SIP to demonstrate 15% is a paper exercise that exhausts both
the states' and EPA's time and resources.
The fact that EPA cannot determine precisely the amount of credit
available for the federal measures not yet promulgated does not
preclude granting the credit. The credit can be granted as long as EPA
is able to develop reasonable estimates of the amount of VOC reductions
from the measures EPA expects to promulgate. EPA believes that it is
able to develop reasonable estimates, particularly because it has
already proposed and taken comment on the measures at issue, and
expects to promulgate final rules by the spring of 1998. Many other
parts of the SIP, including state measures, typically
[[Page 34003]]
include estimates and assumptions concerning VOC amounts, rather than
actual measurements. For example, EPA's document to estimate emissions,
(``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'', January 1995, AP-
42), provide emission factors used to estimate emissions from various
sources and source processes. AP-42 emission factors have been used,
and continue to be used, by states and EPA to determine base year
emission inventory figures for sources and to estimate emissions from
sources where such information is needed. Estimates in the expected
amount of VOC reductions are commonly made in air quality plans, even
for those control measures that are already promulgated.
Moreover, the fact that EPA is occasionally delayed in its
rulemaking is not an argument against granting credits from these
measures. The measures are statutorily required, and states and
citizens could bring suit to enforce the requirements that EPA
promulgate them. If the amount of credit that EPA allows the state to
claim turns out to be greater than the amount EPA determines to be
appropriate when EPA promulgates the federal measures, EPA intends to
take appropriate action to require correction of any shortfall in
necessary emissions reductions that may occur.
The above analysis focuses on the statutory provisions that include
specific dates for 15% SIP submittals (November, 1993), and
implementation (November 15, 1996). These dates have expired, and EPA
has developed new dates for submittal and implementation. EPA does not
believe that the expiration of the statutory dates, and the development
of new ones, has implications for the issue of whether reductions from
federal measures promulgated after the date of 15% SIP approval may be
counted toward those 15% SIPs. Although the statutory dates have
passed, EPA believes that the analysis described above continues to be
valid.
Comment 7
SCLDF commented that EPA proposed disapproval of the Philadelphia
15% plan in 1996 because the plan assumed credit from control
strategies either not fully adopted, not creditable under the Clean Air
Act, or which had not been adequately quantified. Furthermore, EPA
proposed disapproval of the plan because Pennsylvania switched I/M
programs yet did not revise the 15% plan to reflect the differences in
the I/M program description and projected emission reductions. EPA set
precedence with this rulemaking and to propose approval of the Virginia
15% plan when the same deficiencies exist is acting in an arbitrary and
capricious manner of treating similar situations in such a
diametrically opposite fashion.
Response: EPA's proposed approval of the Virginia 15% plan is not
inconsistent with the proposed disapproval of the Philadelphia 15%
plan. On July 10, 1996, EPA proposed to disapprove Pennsylvania's 15%
plan for the Philadelphia area because it would not have achieved
sufficient reductions to meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of
the Act (61 FR 36320). EPA did not credit any reductions from
Pennsylvania's Enhanced iI/M Program because at the time of the July
10, 1996 rulemaking EPA had disapproved Pennsylvania's I/M
submittal.1 As discussed above, on May 15, 1997, EPA granted
conditional interim approval of Virginia's I/M program in the Virginia
SIP (62 FR 26745). Therefore, the factual basis for EPA's conditional
interim approval of Virginia's 15% is not similar to that of the
Philadelphia 15% Plan. In the July 10, 1996 proposed disapproval, EPA
credited the measures in Pennsylvania's 15% Plan towards meeting the
rate of progress requirements of the Act even though they were
insufficiently documented to qualify for full approval. See, 61 FR
36322. That action is wholly consistent with EPA's conditional interim
approval of the Virginia 15% plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In a letter, dated April 13, 1995, EPA converted the August
31, 1994 conditional approval of Pennsylvania I/M submittal to a
disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8
NYSDEC commented that EPA should not be treating this as a Table 3
SIP action, because the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund settlement
regarding 15% plans in the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C.
ozone nonattainment areas has national policy implications.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Delegation authority is
an internal agency decision. This rulemaking action is consistent with
EPA delegation policy. The authority for decision making and signature
of all SIP revisions has been delegated to the Regional Administrators.
Comment 9
NYSDEC commented that EPA should propose limited approval/limited
disapproval of this SIP because of its technical defects.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Historically, the Agency
has used both conditional approval and limited approval/disapproval
actions for SIP revisions with technical deficiencies. EPA has the
authority to grant conditional approvals at least when EPA has a
reasonable basis to believe that the information to correct these
deficiencies is available and can be implemented by the state within a
12-month period. EPA has a reasonable basis to believe that the
Commonwealth of the Virginia has the ability to and will correct the
deficiencies conditioned in the 15% plan. The Commonwealth has taken a
revised 15% plan through the public hearing process which addresses
many of the named deficiencies. Furthermore, Virginia has submitted a
commitment letter agreeing to meet the conditions of the conditional
approval and correct the 15% plan within 12 months of this rulemaking.
Comment 10
NYSDEC commented that EPA should have addressed the contingency
measure requirements of the Clean Air Act in this rulemaking.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Under section 172(b) of
the Act, areas classified as nonattainment must include in their
nonattainment plan provisions, contingency measures to be implemented
if an area fails to make reasonable further progress or attain the
standard by the applicable attainment date. In addition, section
182(c)(9) of the Act requires areas classified as serious and above to
include in their nonattainment SIP contingency measures to be
implemented if a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone is not
achieved.
EPA interprets the provisions of sections 172(b) and 182(c)(9), on
the one hand; and section 182(b)(1)(A) [the 15% plan requirement], on
the other hand, to be separate and independent provisions within the
Act. Therefore, this rulemaking addresses EPA's action on the May 15,
1995 15% plan submittal only as it adheres to the requirements of
Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act. There is no obligation to act on the
contingency measure requirement in this rulemaking. Any submittal that
the Commonwealth submits to EPA regarding the contingency measure
requirements of section 172(b) of the Act will be handled under a
separate rulemaking action.
Comment 11
NYSDEC commented that the redesign of the Virginia I/M test and
repair program claims an effectiveness of 93% relative to a centralized
program. This implies that the existing
[[Page 34004]]
basic test and repair program effectiveness is greater than 50%. The
effectiveness of the existing program needs to be re-evaluated and the
base year inventory and 1996 target levels adjusted to reflect the
revised effectiveness.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the
Commonwealth should have to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the
existing program. Requiring recalculation of the baseline at this point
in time would effectively be requiring the states to hit a moving
target, something which EPA feels Congress did not intend to happen as
a result of the latitude afforded to states under the NHSDA. EPA is
willing to allow states to rely on the baseline modeling previously
done for the 15% plans, even though the Commonwealth's assessment of
the existing program provides evidence to say that the program was more
effective than previously demonstrated through modeling. EPA believes a
recalculation of the I/M baseline credits would be an unreasonable
burden to place on states because the information that suggests the
need for recalculation did not become available until well after
Virginia completed the 15% calculations and submitted the SIP to EPA
for approval. See discussion below under comment 16 regarding
calculation of credits for open burning.
Comment 12
NYSDEC commented that the viability of the cited 24.6 tons/day
reduction from Virginia I/M is questionable. The Virginia I/M program
is similar to the New York I/M program, yet the New York program is an
annual one. EPA Region III has allowed Virginia to claim greater credit
for their I/M program than Region II has allowed New York to do. This
constitutes regional inconsistency. EPA is treating the Virginia I/M
program more favorably than the New York I/M program by allowing
greater credit for a more deficient program.
Response: EPA has granted conditional interim approval to
Virginia's I/M program under NHSDA. Although the SIP approved I/M
program differs from the program referred to in Virginia's 15% plan,
EPA has determined that the two programs will ultimately achieve a
similar amount of credit. As a condition of this rulemaking however,
Virginia is required to remodel the credits achieved from its I/M
program using the appropriate inputs which accurately reflect the newly
designed program under the NHSDA. Full approval of the 15% plan is
conditioned upon this demonstration of credit through remodeling. The
24.6 tons/day reduction is, therefore, only conditionally approved
until the demonstration is submitted by Virginia as required under
NHSDA.
Virginia has committed to complete a remodeling demonstration in
accordance with EPA policy on I/M modeling. Virginia has not been
allowed to deviate from EPA-accepted modeling practices, in fact the
Commonwealth will be required to remodel the program as designed and
implemented, using the credit deck specified for its ASM test
procedure, as directed by EPA. The 15% I/M credits for both the New
York program and the Virginia program are calculated with respect to
not only the I/M program performance standard, but more importantly in
conjunction with the amount and type of VMT for each area. EPA does not
lend any credibility to New York's argument that EPA is allowing
Virginia to take greater credit with modeling EPA Region II would find
insufficient. The premise of New York's comment is that EPA has made a
decision regarding the amount of creditable emission reductions from
New York's I/M program. In fact, New York State has not yet submitted a
15% plan and EPA has not made a decision regarding the amount of
creditable reduction from the New York I/M program. Once New York
submits a 15% plan, EPA will evaluate the amount of credit from New
York's I/M program. Furthermore, Virginia has moved forward with final
regulations for an I/M program that has been granted final conditional
interim approval, and which is slated to begin start-up by November
1997.
Comment 13
NYSDEC commented that EPA cannot allow credit from an I/M program
outside the nonattainment area (Facquier County).
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As a preliminary matter,
EPA originally relied on policy established in guidance documents for
the preparation of 15% plans in allowing creditable reductions from the
implementation of I/M in Facquier County, a county adjacent to but not
part of the nonattainment area.
Specifically, Appendix F (F-10) of ``Guidance For Growth Factors,
Projections, And Control of Strategies For The 15 Percent Rate-Of-
Progress Plans'' [EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993] provides examples of
additional mobile source controls which will achieve creditable
emissions reductions necessary to meet 15 percent requirements, net of
growth. One example shown is a ``basic I/M program imposed in areas
adjacent to the nonattainment area to control emissions from vehicles
that commute into the nonattainment area. States should rely primarily
on traffic counts to verify the commute traffic information for the
nonattainment area.'' The Commonwealth of Virginia initially made such
a showing using the Mobile 5.0a model to determine the amount of
creditable reductions to be achieved by implementing I/M in adjacent
Facquier County. Therefore, EPA proposed to approve the 0.9 tons/day
reduction creditable through this measure.
However, since the proposed rulemaking was published, EPA has
subsequently learned from the Commonwealth that I/M will not in fact be
implemented in Facquier County, Virginia. The Commonwealth has removed
this measure from the draft revised 15% plan that it has taken to
public hearing. The Commonwealth is no longer claiming a 0.9 tons/day
reduction from I/M in Facquier County as a creditable measure in the
revised 15% plan. In response, EPA is not approving the 0.9 tons/day
credits in the conditionally approved 15% plan for northern Virginia.
In its commitment letter of April 4, 1997 the Commonwealth agreed to
submit an amended 15% plan as a SIP revision that will demonstrate
using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit calculations
that the 54.5 tons/day emissions reduction, supported through
creditable emissions reduction control measures, satisfies Virginia's
15% rate of progress requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.
nonattainment area. EPA interprets this commitment to mean that
Virginia will demonstrate in the revised 15% plan submittal that the
area will have achieved a 15% reduction in VOCs net of growth, not
including the credit initially claimed for I/M in Facquier County.
Comment 14
NYSDEC commented that the discrepancies in the inventory and growth
projections in the Virginia plan are significant and EPA should not
dismiss these.
Response: EPA is not dismissing the discrepancies in the May 15,
1995 submittal. EPA noted the differences in the numbers for the mobile
source category between the base year 1990 inventory and the 15% plan
inventory. EPA determined that the discrepancies are insignificant and
can be attributed to rounding errors in the inventory development
process. Additionally, the Commonwealth is submitting revisions to the
1990 base year inventory for the Northern Virginia portion of the
[[Page 34005]]
Washington D.C. nonattainment area as part of the revised 15% plan that
went to public hearing. These revisions to the 1990 base year inventory
will be reviewed and acted upon once the submittal is made.
Regarding growth projections, EPA is conditioning approval of the
plan and requiring Virginia to revise its growth estimates as a
condition for full approval. Revising the plan to account for growth in
point sources between 1990 and 1996 will, in fact, change the budget
contained in the 15% plan and the amount of emission reductions
required to offset growth. EPA has also conditioned full approval of
the 15% plan on a demonstration to be provided by Virginia that point
source growth be determined and offset with an equivalent amount of
emission reductions.
Comment 15
NYSDEC commented that the Stage I credits in Loudoun County should
not be allowed; this was a noncreditable reasonably available control
technology (RACT) fix-up.
Response: The commenter is correct in this statement. Virginia
claimed a total of 0.5 tons/day emission reduction from the
implementation of Stage I controls in Loudoun and Stafford counties in
the nonattainment area. In 1988 EPA made a SIP call to the Commonwealth
of Virginia to among other requirements, require Stage I VOC controls
in Loudoun County. This was, in fact, part of the RACT Fix-Ups SIP
call. The Act does not allow reductions from RACT Fix-Ups to be
creditable toward the 15% plans. Therefore, the 0.23 tons/day emissions
reductions associated with implementing Stage I controls in Loudoun
County are not creditable toward the Virginia 15% plan, and EPA is not
approving these credits in the conditionally approved 15% plan for
Northern Virginia. However, the remaining 0.26 tons/day associated with
implementing Stage I emission controls in Stafford County are a
creditable reduction in the 15% plan, because Stafford County was added
to the nonattainment area in the 1991 designations and not subject to
the pre-1990 RACT fix-up requirements. In its commitment letter of
April 4, 1997 the Commonwealth agreed to submit an amended 15% plan as
a SIP revision that will demonstrate using appropriate documentation
methodologies and credit calculations that the 54.5 tons/day emissions
reduction, supported through creditable emissions reduction control
measures, satisfies Virginia's 15% rate of progress requirement for the
Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area. EPA interprets this
commitment to mean that the Commonwealth will demonstrate in the
revised 15% plan submittal that the area will have achieved a 15%
reduction in VOCs net of growth, notwithstanding the credit claimed for
implementing Stage I controls in Loudoun County.
The Commonwealth and EPA originally believed that there were no
RACT fix-ups that resulted in emission reductions in the northern
Virginia area and claimed zero in the target level calculation for the
area. Although the effects of this revision to the target level may be
minimal and insignificant, nevertheless, Stage I reductions in Loudoun
County should be deducted from the target level in accordance with EPA
guidance and policy on target level calculations. EPA interprets
Virginia's commitment letter to mean that Virginia will recalculate the
target level for the northern Virginia area to account for these
reductions from the RACT fix-up rule.
Comment 16
NYSDEC commented that the inventory data and emission factors for
open burning do not support Virginia's claim of 2.6 tons/day credit.
Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Commonwealth of
Virginia used the available data at the time to compute emission
reductions from controls on open burning. Additional information
regarding the emissions inventory for the open burning category can be
found in Virginia's SIP submittal for the 1990 Base Year VOC Emissions
Inventory for the area, which EPA approved on September 16, 1996. Using
information from the inventory and the appropriate methodology at the
time from EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42),
Fourth Edition (1987), EPA has determined that Virginia correctly
computed the amount of emission reductions resulting from the open
burning control strategy. Virginia's open burning rule bans all burning
of construction waste, debris waste and demolition waste.
Using information collected through permits issued for open
burning, Virginia estimates that 1,824 acres are burned annually in the
nonattainment area. The fuel loading factor of 70 tons/acre was taken
from AP-42, Table 2.4-5, category ``forest residues--unspecified'' (the
appropriate category for landclearing debris associated with
construction projects). The VOC emission factor of 19 lbs/ton burned
(nonmethane emissions) 2 was taken from the same table.
\2\ According to AP-42, nonmethane VOC emissions from
unspecified forest residues could include olefins, acetylene,
aldehydes, ketones, aromatics, cycloparaffins, and other saturates.
Not all VOC emissions are necessarily ozone precursors. However, in
the absence of more specific information and for the purposes of
emissions inventory development, all non-methane VOC emissions from
open burning categories are assumed to be ozone precursors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1824 acres/year * 1 year/365days * 70 tons/acre fuel = 349.9 tons/day
burned
349.9 tons/day * 19 lbs/ton VOC * .0005 tons/1 lb = 3.32 lbs VOC/day
emission
The Fourth Edition (1987) of AP-42 was the current edition when the
Commonwealth prepared the 1990 base year inventory and the 15% plan.
EPA's applicable guidance does not require that a base year inventory,
target level calculation and, hence, other aspects of a 15% plan be
revisited due to insignificant changes in emission factors that become
available after submission of the plan. 3 The Commonwealth
of Virginia took the 15% plan to hearing in November 1993. The
commenter quotes information from the Fifth Edition of AP-42 which was
released during 1995 well after preparation and submission of the 15%
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See section 2.3 of ``Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year
Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for 15 Percent Rate of
Progress Plans'' (EPA-452/R-92-005, October 1992); and ``State
Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule'', 57
Federal Register 13498 and 13508 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 15% plan for the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington
D.C. nonattainment area claimed no growth in emissions in the open
burning category for the period 1990-1996. Virginia applied the default
rule compliance value of 80% to the 1990 baseline daily emissions of
3.3 tons/day. The resulting estimated emissions reduction from the ban
on open burning is 2.64 tons/day. EPA is approving this amount of
emission reduction credit in the Virginia 15% plan because the
Commonwealth used the appropriate methodology for estimating emissions
and has properly adopted and implemented the open burning rule in the
nonattainment area.
III. Conditional Interim Approval
EPA has evaluated Virginia's May 15, 1995 submittal for consistency
with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy and
determined, as documented in the March 12, 1997 NPR that, on its face,
the 15% plan for Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan
Washington D.C. area achieves the required 15% VOC
[[Page 34006]]
emission reduction to meet Virginia's portion of the regional multi-
state plan to satisfy the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the Act.
However, there are measures included in the Virginia 15% plan, which
may be creditable towards the Act requirement, but which are
insufficiently documented for EPA to take action on at this time. While
the amount of creditable reductions for certain control measures has
not been adequately documented to qualify for Clean Air Act approval,
EPA has determined that the submittal for Northern Virginia portion of
the Metropolitan Washington D.C. area contains enough of the required
structure to warrant conditional interim approval. EPA cannot grant
full approval of the Virginia 15% rate-of-progress plan under section
110(k)(3) and Part D of the Clean Air Act. Instead, EPA is granting
conditional interim approval of this SIP revision under section
110(k)(4) of the Act, because the Commonwealth must meet the specified
conditions and supplement its submittal to satisfy the requirements of
section 182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15 percent rate-of-progress
plan, and because the Commonwealth must supplement its submittal and
demonstrate it has achieved the required emission reductions.
The March 12, 1997 NPR listed the conditions that Virginia must
meet in order to convert the conditional approval to full approval. In
an April 4, 1997 letter to EPA, the Commonwealth committed to meet all
the conditions listed in the NPR within 12 months of final conditional
approval. The conditions from the NPR are restated here. The
Commonwealth of Virginia must fulfill the following conditions by no
later than June 24, 1998:
1. Virginia's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in
point sources from 1990-1996.
2. Virginia must meet the conditions listed in the November 6, 1996
proposed conditional interim Inspection and Maintenance Plan (I/M)
rulemaking notice, and the I/M reductions using the following two EPA
guidance memos: ``Date by which States Need to Achieve all the
Reductions Needed for the 15 Percent Plan from I/M and Guidance for
Recalculation,'' note from John Seitz and Margo Oge, dated August 13,
1996, and ``Modeling 15 Percent VOC Reductions from I/M in 1999--
Supplemental Guidance'', memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally
Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.
3. Virginia must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable
reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.
4. Virginia must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with a
demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit
calculations that the 54.5 tons/day reduction, supported through
creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies
Virginia's 15% ROP requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.
nonattainment area.
After making all the necessary corrections to establish the
creditability of chosen control measures, Virginia must demonstrate
that 15% emission reduction is obtained in the Northern Virginia
portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area as
required by section 182(b)(1) of the Act and in accordance with EPA's
policies and guidance issued pursuant to section 182(b)(1).
IV. Final Action
EPA is today granting conditional interim approval of the Northern
Virginia 15% plan as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is granting
approval to emission credits for the Virginia 15% plan on an interim
basis, pending verification of Virginia's I/M program's performance,
pursuant to section 348 of the NHSDA. The interim approval of the 15%
plan will expire at the end of 18 months following EPA's final
conditional interim rulemaking of Virginia's I/M program which was
published in the Federal Register on May 15, 1997. The interim approval
will be replaced by appropriate EPA action based on the evaluation EPA
receives concerning the I/M program's performance. If the evaluation
indicates a shortfall in emission reductions compared to the remodeling
that the 15% plan is conditioned on, the Commonwealth will need to find
additional emission credits. Failure of the Commonwealth to make up for
an emission shortfall from the enhanced I/M program may subject the
Commonwealth to sanctions and imposition of a Federal Implementation
Plan. EPA has already approved the Virginia enhanced I/M program on a
conditional interim basis. This approval of the Virginia enhanced I/M
program was taken under section 110 of the Act and, although the
credits provided by this program may expire, the approval of the I/M
regulations does not expire. As explained above, the credits provided
by the enhanced I/M program on an interim basis for the 15% plan may be
adjusted based on EPA's evaluation of the enhanced I/M program's
performance.
This rulemaking action is a conditional interim approval that will
not convert to full approval until Virginia has met conditions 1
through 4 of this rulemaking. If the conditions are not met within 12
months of today's rulemaking, this rulemaking will convert to a
disapproval. Once Virginia satisfies the conditions of the I/M
rulemaking and receives final interim approval of I/M, EPA will grant
final interim approval of the 15% plan, (assuming that the other
conditions have been met). Conversely, if EPA disapproves the Virginia
I/M program, EPA's conditional interim approval of the 15% plan would
also convert to a disapproval. EPA would notify Virginia by letter that
the conditions have not been met and that the conditional interim
approval of the 15% plan has converted to a disapproval. Each of the
conditions must be fulfilled by Virginia and submitted to EPA as an
amendment to the SIP. If Virginia corrects the deficiencies within one
year of conditional interim approval, and submits a revised 15% plan as
a SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking on that revision.
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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, the EPA
certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any small
entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would
constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA
[[Page 34007]]
to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co.
v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Act do not create any new requirements but
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new
requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the
Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it
will not affect any existing state requirements applicable to small
entities. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies
that this disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action, pertaining to the final conditional
interim approval of the 15% plan for the Northern Virginia portion of
the metropolitan Washington D.C. area, must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 25, 1997.
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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Ozone.
Dated: June 13, 1997.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart VV--Virginia
2. Section 52.2450 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2450 Conditional approval.
* * * * *
(e) The Commonwealth of Virginia's May 15, 1995 submittal for the
15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan (15% plan) for the Northern Virginia
portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. ozone nonattainment area,
is conditionally approved based on certain contingencies, for an
interim period. The conditions for approvability are as follows:
(1) Virginia's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in
point sources from 1990-1996.
(2) Virginia must meet the conditions listed in the November 6,
1996 proposed conditional interim Inspection and Maintenance Plan (I/M)
rulemaking notice, remodel the I/M reductions using the following two
EPA guidance memos: ``Date by which States Need to Achieve all the
Reductions Needed for the 15 Percent Plan from I/M and Guidance for
Recalculation,'' note from John Seitz and Margo Oge, dated August 13,
1996, and ``Modeling 15 Percent VOC Reductions from I/M in 1999--
Supplemental Guidance'', memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally
Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.
(3) Virginia must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable
reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.
(4) Virginia must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with
a demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and
credit calculations that the 54.5 tons/day reduction, supported through
creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies
Virginia's 15% ROP requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.
nonattainment area.
[FR Doc. 97-16510 Filed 6-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
