[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 108 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30821-30829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14717]
[[Page 30821]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD 053-3013; FRL-5835-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 15% Plan for Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland
for the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. serious
ozone nonattainment area to meet the 15 percent rate-of-progress (ROP)
requirements (also known as the 15% plan) of the Clean Air Act (the
Act). EPA is proposing conditional approval because the 15% plan
submitted by the State of Maryland will result in significant emission
reductions from the 1990 baseline emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) which contribute to the formation of ground level
ozone, and, thus, will improve air quality. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the Act.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action for the 15% plan must be
postmarked by July 7, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief,
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency--Region III, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. 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. Persons interested in examining these documents
should schedule an appointment with the contact person (listed below)
at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Copies of the documents
relevant to this action are also available at the Maryland Department
of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn M. Donahue, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, or by telephone
at (215) 566-2095. Questions may also be addressed via e-mail at
donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov. Please note that only written comments
can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act, as amended in 1990, requires ozone
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above to develop plans to
reduce VOC emissions by 15% from 1990 baseline levels in the area
accounting for growth from 1990 to 1996. VOCs emitted during the summer
months contribute significantly to the formation of ground level ozone.
The Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area is classified as a serious
ozone nonattainment area and is subject to the 15% 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 Maryland
portion of the nonattainment area consists of the Counties of Calvert,
Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George's. These areas are
subject to Maryland's 15% plan.
The Act sets limitations on the creditability of certain control
measures towards reasonable further progress. Specifically, States
cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle
Control Program (FMVCP) measures (e.g., new car emissions standards)
promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions stemming from regulations
promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the volatility [i.e., Reid Vapor
Pressure (RVP)] of gasoline. Furthermore, the Act does not allow credit
towards reasonable further progress (RFP) for post-1990 corrections to
existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or
corrections to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules,
since these programs were required to be in-place prior to 1990. In
addition to these restrictions, a creditable measure must be either in
the approved SIP, result from a national rule promulgated by EPA or be
contained in a permit issued under Title V of the Act. Any measure must
result in real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emission
reductions to be creditable toward the 15% goal.
Virginia, Maryland and the District all must demonstrate reasonable
further progress for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. nonattainment
area. The Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland, and the District
of Columbia, in conjunction with municipal planning organizations,
collaborated on a coordinated 15% plan for the Metropolitan Washington,
D.C. nonattainment area (regional 15% plan). 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 Act provides for interstate coordination
for multi-state nonattainment areas. Because the interstate municipal
planning organization involved, MWCOG, meets the requirements of
section 174(c) of the Act, EPA has determined that the relevant
interstate coordination requirements have been fulfilled. In the
absence of an agreement to prepare a nonattainment area-wide plan, each
state could have developed and submitted a SIP revision to obtain the
15% ROP requirement independently of the others.
Although the plan was developed by a regional approach, each
jurisdiction is required to submit its portion of the 15% plan to EPA
as a revision to its SIP. The 15% plan for the Maryland portion of the
nonattainment area was submitted as a SIP revision by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) on July 12, 1995. Because ROP
requirements such as the 15% plan affect transportation improvement
plans, municipal planning organizations have historically been involved
in air quality planning in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area. As
explained in further detail below, the regional 15% plan determined the
regional target level, regional projections of growth and finally the
total amount of creditable reductions required under the 15%
requirement in the entire Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone
nonattainment area. The three jurisdictions, Maryland, Virginia, and
the District, all agreed to apportion this total amount of required
creditable reductions among themselves. EPA is taking action today on
Maryland's 15% plan submittal, which addresses only Maryland's
responsibility for the 15% ROP plan in the Metropolitan Washington, DC
area.
On March 4, 1997, Maryland submitted a draft revised regional 15%
plan for its portion of the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment
area. Maryland scheduled a public hearing on the proposed revisions to
its 15% plan for March 3, 1997. EPA is taking action today on
Maryland's July 12, 1995 15% plan submittal with the knowledge that
[[Page 30822]]
Maryland will be making a formal SIP revision revising its 15% plan.
EPA has reviewed Maryland's July 12, 1995 15% plan submittal and
has identified several deficiencies, which prohibit its full approval.
A detailed discussion of these deficiencies is included below in the
Analysis portion of this rulemaking action, and also in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this action. Copies of the
TSD are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Due to these deficiencies, it
cannot be affirmatively determined that the State's plan achieves the
15% ROP target for reduction in VOCs. Therefore, EPA is proposing
conditional approval of this 15% plan.
II. Analysis of the SIP Revision
A. Base Year Emission Inventory
The baseline from which states must determine the required
reductions for 15% planning is the 1990 VOC base year emissions
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source
categories: stationary, area, on-road mobile, and off-road mobile.
Maryland submitted formal SIP revisions containing their 1990 VOC base
year inventory for the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington,
DC area on July 12, 1995.
B. Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996
EPA has interpreted the Act to require that reasonable further
progress towards attainment of the ozone standard must be obtained
after offsetting any growth expected to occur over that period.
Therefore, to meet the 15% ROP requirement, a state must enact measures
achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected growth in
emissions, in addition to achieving a 15% reduction of VOC emissions
from baseline levels. Thus, an estimate of VOC emissions growth from
1990 to 1996 is necessary for determining whether the 15% reduction
target has been achieved. Growth is calculated by multiplying the 1990
base year inventory by acceptable forecasting indicators. Growth must
be determined separately for each source or source category, since
sources typically grow at different rates. EPA's inventory preparation
guidance recommends the following indicators, as applied to emission
units in the case of stationary sources or to a source category in the
case of area sources, in order of preference: Product output, value
added, earnings, and employment. Population can also serve as a
surrogate indicator.
Maryland's 15% plan for the Maryland portion contains growth
projections for stationary, area, on-road motor vehicle, and non-road
vehicle source categories. For a detailed description of the growth
methodologies used by the State, please refer to the TSD for this
action.
To estimate growth for area sources and non-road mobile sources,
Maryland used acceptable growth factor surrogates such as population,
employment and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The travel demand computer
model, MOBILE5a, was used to project growth for on-road sources. The
State's methodology for selecting growth factors and applying them to
the 1990 base year emissions inventory to estimate growth in emissions
in area, on-road mobile, and off-road mobile sources from 1990 to 1996
is approvable.
EPA, however, disagrees with the growth projections for the point
source category. Maryland's 15% plan projected that point source
emissions would remain constant for the period 1990 to 1996 because
Maryland assumes new source review (NSR) offsets and special rules for
modifications of sections 182(c) (6), (7), (8), and (10) of the Act
would prevent an increase in point source emissions. EPA does not agree
with this assumption for the following reasons:
1. The revised NSR rules for source modifications were not
effective until November 15, 1992. Therefore, there may have been
modifications of sources of less than the significance level of 40 tons
per year (TPY) from 1990 to 1992. A potential 40 TPY increase could
represent a 0.1 to 0.15 tons per season day (TPD) potential increase
which is significant compared to the 1990 area-wide ROP (i.e., 1990
base year) inventory point source emissions of 18 TPD.
2. The revised NSR rules do not apply to cumulative modifications
at a source of less than 25 TPY (de minimis modifications) nor to
construction of new sources of less than 25 TPY potential emissions.
For inventory purposes, point sources are defined as stationary sources
with the potential to emit 10 TPY or more.
3. The NSR offset-related assumption does not address increases in
emissions from sources that operated at less than 100% capacity during
1990 that can legally increase their typical ozone season day emissions
by increasing the average daily production without triggering NSR
offset requirements.
EPA cannot fully approve Maryland's point source growth projection
based upon the assumption that the NSR program would hold point source
emissions constant. As a condition of final approval, Maryland will
have to remedy this deficiency and revise the 15% plan to:
1. Project growth in point source emissions between 1990 and 1996
using growth factors based upon an adequate surrogate in accordance
with the applicable EPA guidance documents. Such a projection may be
based upon more recent emissions data than 1990, e.g., from current
emission statements where available; and
2. Adopt and implement, if necessary, additional creditable
measures to ensure that growth in point source emissions from 1990 to
1996 is offset.
It is relevant to note that Maryland has included growth in point
sources, based on actual growth between 1990 and 1996, in the March 4,
1997 revised draft regional 15% plan subject to public hearing
scheduled for March 3, 1997.
C. Calculation of Target Level Emissions
The regional 15% plan calculates a target level of emissions to
meet the 15% ROP requirement over the entire nonattainment area. The
regional 15% plan projects emissions growth from 1990 to 1996 and
apportions among the three jurisdictions the amount of creditable
emission reductions that each jurisdiction must achieve in order for
the entire nonattainment area to achieve a 15% reduction in VOCs net of
growth. Each jurisdiction adopted the regional plan, which identified
the amount of creditable emission reductions which that jurisdiction
must achieve for the regional plan to get 15%, accounting for any
growth. The regional plan calculated the ``target level'' of 1996 VOC
emissions in accordance with EPA guidance.
EPA has interpreted section 182(b) of the Act to require that the
base year VOC emission inventory be adjusted to account for reductions
that would occur from the pre-1990 FMVCP and RVP programs. First, the
regional plan calculated the non-creditable reductions from the pre-
1990 FMVCP and RVP programs and subtracted those emissions from the
1990 ROP inventory. This yields the 1990 ``adjusted base year
inventory''. The target level is the 1990 ROP inventory less the sum of
the following:
1. 15% of the adjusted base year inventory,
2. The sum of the non-creditable reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP
and RVP programs, and
3. Any reductions resulting from post-1990 corrections to existing
motor
[[Page 30823]]
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or corrections to
RACT rules.
There were no post-1990 emission reductions attributed to RACT
corrections or I/M corrections in the Metropolitan Washington, DC
nonattainment area, and the regional plan correctly claimed zero
reductions in the target level calculation. Table 1 summarizes the
calculations for the 1996 VOC target level for the entire Metropolitan
Washington, DC nonattainment area.
Table 1.--Calculation of Required Reductions for the Washington, DC Nonattainment Area 15% Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Washington
of Maryland Virginia D.C. area
Columbia totals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1990 ROP Inventory........................................... 65.9 249.9 222.8 538.6
2 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory............................ 56.3 216.9 190.7 463.9
3 FMVCP/RVP Adjustment (Line 1 less Line 2).................... 9.60 33.00 32.10 74.70
4 15% Reduction Requirement = 15% of Adjusted Base Year (0.15
x Line 2)..................................................... 8.45 32.54 28.61 69.6
5 RACT Corrections............................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
6 I/M Corrections.............................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0
7 Total 15% & Non-creditable Reductions (Sum of lines 3, 4, 5 &
6)............................................................. 18.05 65.54 60.71 144.30
8 Projected Growth 1990 to 1996................................ 5.20 29.10 29.00 63.30
9 1996 Regional Target Level (line 1 less line 7).............. .......... .......... .......... 394.30
10 Apportioned State Emission Reduction and Regional Total...... 12.3 60.7 59.9 132.90
11 Total Reductions Claimed in 15% Plan......................... 12.7 62.7 61.8 137.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emission reduction required to meet the 15% ROP requirement
equals the sum of 15% of the adjusted base year inventory and any
reductions necessary to offset emissions growth projected to occur
between 1990 and 1996, plus reductions that resulted from corrections
to the I/M or VOC RACT rules that were required to be in-place before
1990. The target level, Line 9 of the table, is the 1990 ROP inventory
less the base 15% reduction (Line 4 of the table) and less all non-
creditable emission reductions (Lines 3, 5 and 6 of the table). The
Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area regional target level is
394.3 TPD. EPA has determined that the regional target level for the
Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area has been properly
calculated in accordance with EPA guidance.
The Maryland portion of the total 15% and non-creditable reductions
is 65.54 TPD. Thus, the target level for Maryland is 184.4 TPD. EPA has
determined that the target level for Maryland was also properly
calculated in accordance with EPA guidance.
D. Creditable Emission Control Strategies in the 15% Plan
The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal
rules) are addressed, in detail, in Maryland's 15% plan. The following
is a brief description of each control measure Maryland has claimed
credit for in the submitted 15% plan, as well as the results of EPA's
review of the use of that strategy towards the Act's ROP requirement.
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
Section 211(k) of the Act requires that, beginning January 1, 1995,
only RFG be sold or dispensed in ozone nonattainment areas classified
as severe or above. Gasoline is reformulated to reduce combustion by-
products and to produce fewer evaporative emissions. Section 211(k)(6)
allows other nonattainment areas to ``opt in'' to the program. EPA
approved the request by Maryland to opt in to the RFG program. The
State claims a reduction of 9.2 TPD from its 1996 projected
uncontrolled on-road mobile source emissions using the MOBILE5a model
to determine the emission benefit. EPA has reviewed the Maryland
submittal's calculation of the benefits for this measure and finds that
the amount of reduction Maryland claims is creditable, but has not been
documented as required by the Act.
In order to address these documentation and modeling issues, as
well as the requirements of the National Highway Systems Designation
Act (NHSDA), EPA is requiring Maryland to recalculate the mobile source
credits for enhanced I/M program, RFG and FMVCP (Tier I). The benefits
from RFG and Tier I must not be separated out on a tons per day basis
for each control measure, but rather all mobile source measures must be
included in the 1999 target level calculation run. This remodeling
assessment will therefore remove any potential for ``double-counting''
the credit accorded to individual mobile source measures. The
requirement for a remodeling assessment is discussed below in the
section addressing credits for Maryland's enhanced I/M program. While
EPA will require Maryland to document and remodel the credits derived
from RFG under the remodeling condition cited in the enhanced I/M
section of this rule, EPA has no reason to dispute at this time that
the 9.2 TPD emission benefit claimed in Maryland's 15% plan from the
RFG program is creditable.
Off-Road Use of Reformulated Gasoline
The use of RFG will also result in reduced emissions from off-road
engines such as motors for recreational boats and lawn mower engines,
commonly used in summer months. Maryland claims a reduction of 1.2 TPD
from its 1996 projected uncontrolled off-road mobile source emissions.
Maryland used guidance provided on August 18, 1993 by EPA's Office of
Mobile Sources on the VOC emission benefits for non-road equipment
which are in a nonattainment area that uses Federal Phase I RFG.
Maryland has correctly used the guidance to quantify the VOC emission
reductions for this measure. EPA had determined that the 1.2 TPD
emission benefit claimed in Maryland's 15% plan is creditable.
Post 1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier I)
EPA promulgated a national rule establishing ``new car'' standards
for 1994 and newer model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724). Since the standards were adopted after
the Act was amended in 1990, the resulting emission reductions are
creditable toward the 15% reduction goal. Due to the three-year phase-
in period for this program and the associated benefits stemming from
fleet turnover, the reductions prior to 1996 are somewhat limited.
Maryland claimed a reduction of 1.0 TPD from the
[[Page 30824]]
Tier I using the MOBILE5a model to determine the emission benefits. EPA
has reviewed the methodology used by Maryland in calculating the
benefits for this measure and finds that the amount of reduction
Maryland claims is creditable, but has not been documented as required
by the Act.
As described above, in order to address these documentation and
modeling issues, as well as the requirements of the NHSDA, EPA is
requiring Maryland to recalculate the mobile source credits for
enhanced I/M, RFG, and Tier I. While EPA will require Maryland to
remodel the credits derived from Tier I under the remodeling condition
cited in the enhanced I/M section of this rule, EPA has no reason to
dispute at this time that the 1.0 TPD emission benefit claimed by
Maryland in its 15% plan from Tier I is creditable.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)
In EPA's most recent policy memorandum on AIM credits, ``Update on
the Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions
from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings
Rule,'' dated March 7, 1996, EPA allowed states to claim a 20%
reduction of total AIM emissions from the national rule. Maryland
claimed a 20% reduction in AIM emissions under its 15% plan, which is a
reduction of 4.9 TPD from their 1996 projected uncontrolled AIM coating
emissions. In the March 7, 1996 memorandum, EPA allowed states to
continue to claim a 20% reduction of total AIM emissions from the
national rule in their 15% plans although the emission reductions are
not expected to occur until April 1997. As a result of legal challenges
to the proposed national rule, EPA has negotiated a compliance date of
no earlier than January 1, 1998. Even though the promulgation date for
this rule is now months beyond the end of 1996, it is EPA's intention
to still allow the amount of credit specified for the AIM rule in the
memorandum in states' 15% plans. EPA believes this is justified in
light of the significant delays in proposing the rule. Furthermore, EPA
believes the State has a significantly limited ability to effectuate
reductions from this measure through the state adoption process any
sooner than EPA's rulemaking schedule. If this final rule does not
provide the amount of credit that Maryland claims in its 15% plan, the
State is responsible for developing measures to make up the shortfall.
Use of emissions reductions from EPA's expected national AIM rule
is acceptable towards the 15% plan target. Therefore, the 4.9 TPD in
Maryland's 15% plan are creditable.
Consumer and Commercial Products
Section 183(e) of the Act required EPA to conduct a study of VOC
emissions from consumer and commercial products and to compile a
regulatory priority list. EPA is then required to regulate those
categories that account for 80% of the consumer product emissions in
ozone nonattainment areas. Group I of EPA's regulatory schedule lists
24 categories of consumer products to be regulated by national rule,
including personal, household, and automotive products. EPA intends to
issue a final rule covering these products in the near future. EPA
policy allows states to claim up to a 20% reduction of total consumer
product emissions towards the ROP requirement. Maryland claimed a 20%
reduction or the equivalent reduction of 1.7 TPD from their 1996
projected uncontrolled consumer and commercial products emissions in
its 15% plan. For the reasons discussed above under the AIM rule
regarding delayed implementation of national rules, the EPA believes
the 1.7 TPD projected reduction in Maryland's 15% plan is creditable.
If this final rule does not provide the amount of credit that Maryland
claims in its 15% plan, the State is responsible for developing
measures to make up the shortfall.
Autobody Refinishing
In a November 29, 1994 memorandum, ``Credit for the 15 Percent
Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing
Rule,'' EPA set forth policy on the creditable reductions to be assumed
from the national rule for autobody refinishing. That memorandum
allowed for a 37% reduction from current emissions with an assumption
of 100% rule effectiveness (presuming the coating application
instructions were being followed). Maryland followed EPA's guidance to
determine the creditable emissions from this rule and claimed a
reduction of 2.5 TPD from their 1996 projected uncontrolled autobody
refinishing emissions in its 15% plan. For the reasons discussed above
under the AIM rule regarding delayed implementation of national rules,
EPA believes the 2.5 TPD projected reduction in Maryland's 15% plan is
creditable. If this final rule does not provide the amount of credit
that Maryland claims in its 15% plan, the State is responsible for
developing measures to make up the shortfall.
Stage I Vapor Recovery
Stage I vapor recovery is a control measure which substantially
reduces VOC emissions during the process of filling gasoline storage
tanks at gasoline stations. This measure can be applied in newly
designated nonattainment areas after the 1990 Amendments to the Act. In
the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment
area, Stage I is a creditable measure in Calvert, Charles, and
Frederick Counties in Maryland because Stage I was not required in
these counties before 1990. The measure requires ``balanced submerged''
filling of gasoline storage tanks at gasoline service stations.
EPA policy allows emission reduction credits achieved in areas
implementing Stage I control measures after 1990 to be creditable
toward the 15% plan. Maryland estimates that this rule would result in
a reduction of 0.9 TPD from Stage I in Calvert, Charles, and Frederick
Counties. The 0.9 TPD projected reduction in Maryland's 15% plan is
creditable.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
Section 182(b)(3) of the Act requires all owners and operators of
gasoline dispensing systems in moderate and above ozone nonattainment
areas to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery
(known as Stage II) of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles.
Stage II vapor recovery is a control measure which substantially
reduces the VOC emissions during the refueling of motor vehicles at
gasoline service stations. The Stage II vapor recovery nozzles at
gasoline pumps capture the gasoline-rich vapors displaced by liquid
fuel during the refueling process. On November 15, 1992, Maryland
submitted a revision to its SIP to require the Stage II controls in all
counties of the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
ozone nonattainment area.
Maryland had no pre-1990 Stage II controls in its portion of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area. Stage II is a
creditable measure in counties where these controls were not required
before 1990. Maryland estimates that the control measure will result in
a reduction of 7.9 TPD from the 1996 projected baseline of 11.7 TPD.
The Maryland 15% plan states that Maryland used the MOBILE5a model in
conjunction with gasoline throughput to determine the creditable
emission reduction. For this mobile source measure, the State submitted
limited documentation with regard to the
[[Page 30825]]
MOBILE5a runs and calculations done to determine credit. However, EPA
has no reason to dispute Maryland's methodology. This measure and the
7.9 TPD is creditable toward the 15% requirement of Maryland's 15%
plan.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs)
TCMs are strategies to both reduce VMT and decrease the amount of
emissions per VMT. TCMs are considered an essential element of control
strategies for nonattainment areas. Section 108(f)(1)(A) of the Act
classifies TCMs as programs for improved transit, traffic flow, fringe
parking facilities for multiple occupancy transit programs, high
occupancy or share-ride programs, and support for bicycle and other
non-automobile transit. Maryland's measures include TCM projects
programmed between fiscal years 1994-1999 in the transportation
improvement plan (TIP) under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program and funded for implementation by 1996 in the
Metropolitan Washington, DC region. CMAQ provides funding for
transportation related projects and programs designed to contribute to
the attainment of air quality standards. TCMs are considered acceptable
measures for states to use to achieve 15% reductions. EPA guidance
requires that TCMs meet the following conditions to be creditable for
the 15% plans: (1) A description of the measure; (2) evidence that the
measure was adopted by the jurisdictions with legal authority to
execute the measure; (3) evidence that funding is available to
implement the measure; (4) evidence that all approvals have been
obtained; (5) evidence that a complete schedule to plan, implement and
enforce the measure has been adopted by the implementing agencies; and
(6) a description of any monitoring program to evaluate the measure's
effectiveness.
Maryland provided the required evidence in the plan submittal for a
total emissions benefit of 0.2 TPD. Maryland used acceptable
methodology for calculating the emissions benefit for the TCMs. The
TCMs were all programmed and funded in the Washington Metropolitan
Region's Fiscal Year 1994-1999 TIP. EPA has determined that the 0.2 TPD
are creditable.
Seasonal Restrictions on Open Burning
Maryland has amended COMAR 26.11.07 to institute a ban on open
burning during the peak ozone season in Maryland's severe and serious
ozone nonattainment areas. Maryland considers the months of June, July,
and August the peak ozone season, because that is when ambient levels
of ozone in Maryland are usually the highest.
This ban on open burning affecting the Maryland portion of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC serious ozone nonattainment area is a
measure to reduce VOC emissions. During the peak ozone season, the
practice of burning for the disposal of brush and yard waste as a
method of land clearing will be banned. These revisions were adopted on
May 1, 1995, and effective on May 22, 1995. Maryland submitted these
revisions to EPA as a SIP revision on July 12, 1995. EPA's direct final
approval of these revisions into the Maryland SIP was signed on January
31, 1997.
The following open fires are not prohibited, as long as all
reasonable means are used to minimize smoke:
1. For cooking of food on noncommercial property (cook outs);
2. For recreational purposes (camp fires);
3. For prevention of fire hazards that cannot be abated by any
other means;
4. For the instruction of fire fighters or the testing of fire
fighter training systems fueled by propane or natural gas;
5. For protection of health and safety when disposal of hazardous
waste is not possible by any other means;
6. For burning pest infested crops or agricultural burning for
animal disease control;
7. For good forest resource management practices;
8. For the burning of excessive lodging for the purpose of re-
cropping; and
9. For testing fire fighting training systems.
This ban is in effect during the ``peak ozone season''. During the
remainder of the year (September 1-May 31) Maryland's existing open
fire regulations apply. Current regulations require that a permit be
obtained before open burning can take place.
The State of Maryland claims 3.7 TPD emissions reductions from the
seasonal open burning ban. EPA has determined that this emission
benefit is creditable to the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan
Washington, DC nonattainment area.
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program
Most of the 15% SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained
enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission
reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However,
because most states experienced substantial difficulties with these
enhanced I/M programs, only a few states are currently actually testing
cars using their original enhanced I/M protocols.
In the case of the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington,
DC nonattainment area, Maryland has submitted a 15% SIP that would
achieve the amount of reductions needed from I/M by November 1999. On
March 27, 1996, Maryland submitted an enhanced I/M SIP revision that
calls for I/M program implementation in counties in the Metropolitan
Washington, DC nonattainment area and Washington County. The Maryland
enhanced I/M program is a biennial program with implementation required
to begin no later than November 15, 1997. The enhanced I/M submittal
consists of it's enabling legislation, a description of the I/M
program, proposed regulations, and a good faith estimate that includes
the State's basis in fact for emission reductions claimed from the I/M
program. On October 31, 1996, EPA proposed conditional approval of the
March 27, 1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision (61 FR 56183). The proposed
conditional approval listed numerous minor and major deficiencies, and
required Maryland to submit a letter within 30 days committing to
correct the deficiencies. Maryland received an extension and submitted
a letter dated December 23, 1996 committing to meet the requirements of
full approval outlined in the October 31, 1996 proposed rulemaking.
Full approval of Maryland's 15% plan is contingent on Maryland
satisfying the conditions of the conditional approval of its enhanced
I/M SIP by a date certain within one year of final conditional
approval, and receiving final full EPA approval of its enhanced I/M
program. If Maryland corrects the deficiencies by that date and submits
a new enhanced I/M SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to approve
that revision. If Maryland fails to fulfill a condition required for
approval, and its I/M program converts to a disapproval, then the
conditional approval of Maryland's 15% plan would also convert to a
disapproval.
In September 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M rule
allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs
appropriate for their needs (60 FR 48029). Subsequently, Congress
enacted the NHSDA, which provides states with additional flexibility in
determining the design of enhanced I/M programs. The substantial amount
of time needed by states to re-design enhanced I/M programs in
accordance with the guidance contained within the NHSDA, secure state
legislative approval when
[[Page 30826]]
necessary, and set up the infrastructure to perform the testing program
has precluded states that revise their enhanced I/M programs from
obtaining emission reductions from such revised programs by November
15, 1996.
The heavy reliance by many states upon enhanced I/M programs to
help achieve the 15% VOC emissions reduction required under section
182(b)(1) of the Act, coupled with the recent NHSDA and regulatory
changes regarding enhanced I/M programs, rendered it impracticable for
many states to achieve the portion of the 15% reductions that are
attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996.
Under these circumstances, disapproval of the 15% SIPs would serve
no purpose. Consequently, under certain circumstances, EPA will propose
to allow states that pursue re-design of enhanced I/M programs to
receive emission reduction credit from these programs within their 15%
plans, even though the emissions reductions from the I/M program will
occur after November 15, 1996. The provisions for crediting reductions
for enhanced I/M programs is contained in two documents: ``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 ``Modelling 15 Percent
VOC Reductions from I/M in 1999--Supplemental Guidance,'' memorandum
from Gay MacGregor and Sally Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.
Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of 15% SIPs if the
emissions reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as well
as from the other 15% SIP measures, will achieve the 15% level as soon
after November 15, 1996 as practicable, pursuant to a February 12, 1997
memorandum from John Seitz and Richard Ossias entitled, ``15 Percent
VOC SIP Approvals and the ``As Soon As Practicable' Test.'' To make
this ``as soon as practicable'' determination, EPA must determine that
the SIP contains all VOC control strategies that are practicable for
the nonattainment area in question and that meaningfully accelerate the
date by which the 15% level is achieved. EPA does not believe that
measures meaningfully accelerate the 15% date if they provide only an
insignificant amount of reductions.
EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to
determine if they are practicable for Maryland's portion of the
Metropolitan Washington, DC area and if they would meaningfully
accelerate the date by which the area reaches the 15% level of
reductions. The EPA proposes to determine that the SIP does contain the
appropriate measures. The TSD for this action contains a discussion of
other measures available for 15% plans. Maryland has taken credit for
several of these measures (or essentially similar measures), such as
reformulated gasoline, revised surface cleaning rules, etc., in the 15%
plan; and taken credit for measures that EPA must promulgate under
section 183(e) such as AIM coatings, consumer and commercial products
rule, and autobody refinishing. Provided below is a tabular summary of
this analysis. Measures for which Maryland took credit in the 15% ROP
plan are identified in the table below as ``In 15% Plan'' and are not
available as a possible alternative to I/M. The other programs that
Maryland included in the 15% ROP plan result in only a possible 2.28
TPD reduction and do not deliver in the aggregate, anything close to
the reductions achieved by enhanced I/M.
Maryland 15% Plan Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Area Potential
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential VOC reduction (tons/
Measures considered day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Source Measures:
AIM Coatings--Federal Rule............. In 15% Plan.
Consumer Products--Federal Rule........ In 15% Plan.
Solvent Cleaning--Substitution/ In 15% Plan.
Equipment.
Graphic Arts--Web Offset Control....... 1.44
Autobody Refinishing--ACT control...... In 15% Plan.
Landfills--Federal Rule................ In 15% Plan.
Other Dry Cleaning--SCAQMD 1102........ 0.81
Stage I Enhancement--P/V Vents......... In 15% Plan.
Stage II--Vapor Recovery............... In 15% Plan.
Nonroad Gasoline--Reformulated Gasoline In 15% Plan.
Point Source Measures:
Other Dry Cleaning--SCAQMD 1102........ 0.02
Stage I--P/V Vents..................... In 15% Plan.
Flexographic Printing--MACT early In 15% Plan.
implementation.
Gravure Printing--MACT early 0.01
implementation.
Web Offset Lithography--ACT control.... In 15% Plan.
Non-mandated On-Road Mobile Measures:
Reformulated Gasoline.................. In 15% Plan.
I/M Reductions:
High Enhanced in 15% Plan.............. In 15% Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has determined that the enhanced I/M program is the only
measure that will significantly accelerate the date by which the 15%
requirement will be achieved. EPA proposes to determine that Maryland's
15% plan does contain all measures, including enhanced I/M, that
achieve reductions as soon as practicable. EPA proposes to allow
enhanced I/M reductions occurring until November 15, 1999 to count
toward the 15% emission reduction level for the 15% plan, since in
doing so, the state will reach a 15% VOC reduction as soon as
practicable.
Maryland claimed a total of 23.2 TPD credit for this measure. In
its July 12, 1995 15% plan submittal, Maryland evaluated the I/M
program using EPA's MOBILE5a model with assumptions that called for
implementation of a centralized, IM240 test with pressure and purge
testing, and a program start date of January 1, 1995. Since the time of
the July 12, 1995 submittal, Maryland has revised its enhanced I/M
program and submitted the redesigned program to EPA.
Maryland's I/M program is a biennial, centralized program network
using IM240 testing equipment scheduled to begin testing by November
1997. Maryland has designed its centralized network of testing stations
to accommodate biennial testing. EPA has determined that Maryland
cannot accelerate the reductions by initially requiring annual testing
because:
1. Without additional testing stations other requirements of the
enhanced I/M rule relating to motorist convenience would suffer.
Motorist convenience is one important aspect that affects public
acceptance and effectiveness of the I/M program.
2. Additional infrastructure changes (e.g. more testing equipment,
enlarging or building new testing stations, and the hiring and training
of additional inspectors) to the enhanced I/M program would not come
on-line in time to afford a substantial increase the amount of
reductions realized before November 15, 1999.
3. The cost effectiveness of the program would be adversely
affected because the additional costs would not result in a
corresponding amount of reductions.
EPA proposes to determine that the I/M program for Maryland's
portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area does achieve
reductions from enhanced I/M as soon as practicable.
Because Maryland's revised 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
[[Page 30827]]
in the regional 15% plan, EPA believes that Maryland's program will
achieve 23.2 TPD of reductions by 1999. However, EPA believes that
Maryland (with MWCOG) is best able to perform the definitive
determination because Maryland will use the same highway network model
that was used to determine the 1990 base year inventory and the 1996
on-road VOC emissions budget used for transportation conformity
purposes (The same highway network model is also used for conformity
determinations). EPA believes it would be appropriate to condition
approval of the 15% ROP upon Maryland remodeling the I/M benefits to
reflect all relevant parameters (start date, network type, test types
for exhaust and purge/pressure testing, waiver rates, cut points, etc.)
of the revised, enhanced I/M program and show the I/M reductions needed
to make the 15% reduction are achieved by no later than November 15,
1999. In performing this demonstration, the State should ensure that
Tier I and RFG benefits are considered. Benefits should not be
separated out on a tons per day basis for each control measure, but
rather all mobile source measures should be evaluated in the 1999
``target level,'' as defined in the December 23, 1996 memorandum,
calculation run. EPA would further condition that such modeling would
be done in accordance with EPA guidance. EPA's guidance for remodeling
I/M for 15% plans includes: (1) A note to the Regional Division
Directors from John Seitz and Margo Oge dated August 13, 1996 entitled
``Date by which States Need to Achieve all the Reductions Needed for
the 15% Plan from I/M Guidance for Recalculation,'' and (2) a joint
memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally Shaver dated December 23, 1996
entitled ``Modeling 15% VOC Reduction(s) from I/M in 1999--Supplemental
Guidance.''
As it relates to Maryland's I/M program, EPA proposes a conditional
approval of the 23.2 TPD reduction from enhanced I/M in the
nonattainment area and Washington County, provided Maryland meets the
conditions of the October 31, 1996 conditional approval of the enhanced
I/M program; receives full EPA approval of its enhanced I/M program;
and remodels its enhanced I/M program using the appropriate, updated
parameters (e.g. appropriate start date, etc.).
Further, EPA makes this conditional approval of the 15% plan
contingent upon Maryland maintaining a mandatory I/M program. EPA will
not credit any reductions toward the 15% ROP requirement from a
voluntary enhanced I/M program. Since the State's 15% plan claims 23.2
TPD from the implementation of a mandatory, centralized, IM240 plan,
any changes to I/M which would render the program voluntary or
discontinued would cause a shortfall of credits in the 15% reduction
goal. EPA is, therefore, proposing in the alternative to convert this
action automatically to a proposed disapproval should the State make
the I/M a voluntary measure.
E. Emission Control Measures Not Evaluated
EPA is not taking action at this time on the following control
measures contained in the Maryland 15% Plan submitted July 12, 1995:
Graphic Arts
This measure regulates emissions from formerly uncontrolled small
lithographic printing operations, such as heatset web, non-heatset web,
non-heatset sheet-fed, and newspaper non-heatset web operations. VOCs
are emitted from the inks, fountain solutions and solvents used to
clean the printing presses. This measure is modeled on EPA's draft
documents ``Offset Lithographic Printing Control Techniques Guideline''
and ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Offset Lithographic
Printing'' announced in the Federal Register, November 8, 1993.
Maryland claims 1.0 TPD in emission benefits from the 1996 projected
year inventory of lithographic printing sources. EPA is not taking
action on this control strategy in the July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan
submittal, nor crediting the 1.0 TPD reduction toward the 15% ROP
requirement in this rulemaking.
Surface Cleaning Operations
This measure amends the Maryland regulation for surface cleaning
(also called cold cleaning and degreasing) devices and operations for
area sources and requires more stringent emission control requirements
and enlarges the field of applicable sources. Maryland's 1996
projection year inventory in this source category is 3.7 TPD. Maryland
estimates that this measure would result in a 10% reduction of
emissions and with 80% rule compliance resulting in 1.5 TPD reduction
credits. EPA is not taking action on this control strategy in the July
12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor crediting the 1.5 TPD
reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this rulemaking.
Municipal Landfill Emissions
This control measure is a state control program regulating VOC
emissions from municipal landfills, utilizing landfill gas capture and
destruction systems. Maryland estimated that this rule would result in
a reduction of 0.7 TPD. EPA is not taking action on this control
strategy in the July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor
crediting the 0.7 TPD reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this
rulemaking.
Pesticide Reformulation
This measure requires the use of low-VOC content pesticides for
consumer, commercial and/or agricultural use. Maryland claims that this
measure results in a reduction of 2.5 TPD by applying a 40% overall
reduction to the 1996 base year projection emissions for pesticide
application. EPA is not taking action on this control strategy in the
July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor crediting the 2.5 TPD
reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this rulemaking.
Non-CTG RACT to 50 TPY
Section 182(b)(2)(B) of the Act requires that serious ozone
nonattainment areas adopt rules to require RACT for all VOC sources in
the nonattainment area not already covered by any Control Technique
Guideline (CTG) issued by EPA that has potential emissions of greater
than or equal to 50 TPY. Maryland revised its existing RACT regulations
to lower the major source threshold to include sources with allowable
emissions of 50 TPY or more, and to extend the geographic applicability
of the regulation statewide, which required RACT in Calvert, Charles,
and Frederick Counties for the first time.
The State of Maryland requires the use of RACT coatings with
emission limits of 3.5 pounds per gallon for Miscellaneous Metal
Coatings. Also, Maryland will require controls on the oven vents of
bakeries, but this rule has yet to be approved into Maryland's SIP. EPA
is currently reviewing the bakery rule submitted by the State of
Maryland. EPA is not taking action on this control strategy in the July
12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor crediting the 0.3 TPD
reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this rulemaking.
Non-CTG RACT to 25 TPY
This measure involves expanding the required RACT standards to
point sources with the potential to emit in excess of 25 TPY of VOC.
States would be required to develop and implement new RACT regulations
for all non-CTG point sources with the potential to emit between 25 and
50 TPY not already regulated or required to be regulated under the
major source definition.
[[Page 30828]]
Maryland claims 0.3 TPD emission reduction from two sources: Andrews
Air Force Base and Stone Industrial. EPA is not taking action on this
control strategy in the July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor
crediting the 0.3 TPD emission reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement
in this rulemaking.
F. Reasonable Further Progress
The table below summarizes the proposed creditable measures and
those measures which EPA is not taking action on in this rulemaking
from Maryland's 15% plan for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area.
Summary of Creditable Emission Reductions in the State of Maryland's 15%
Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Serious Ozone Nonattainment
Area
[Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditable Reductions:
FMVCP Tier I.................................................... 1.0
Reformulated Gasoline
On-Road....................................................... 9.2
Off-Road...................................................... 1.2
Autobody Refinishing............................................ 2.5
AIM............................................................. 4.9
Consumer/Commercial Products.................................... 1.7
TCMs............................................................ 0.2
Seasonal Open Burning Restrictions.............................. 3.7
Stage II Vapor Recovery Nozzles................................. 7.9
Stage I Enhancement............................................. 0.9
Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance \1\........................... 21.1
Washington County............................................... 2.1
-------
Total Creditable.............................................. 56.4
Measures EPA is not Taking Action on in This Rulemaking:
Graphic Arts--Offset lithography................................ 1.0
Surface Cleaning and Degreasing................................. 1.5
Non-CTG RACT to 50 TPY.......................................... 0.3
Non-CTG RACT to 25 TPY.......................................... 0.3
Municipal Landfills............................................. 0.7
Pesticide Reformulation......................................... 2.5
-------
Total No Action............................................... 6.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To conform with EPA's proposal of conditional approval of Maryland's
I/M plan, EPA is proposing conditional approval of the reduction
credits from Maryland's I/M program claimed in Maryland's 15% plan.
EPA has evaluated the July 12, 1995 Maryland submittal for
consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy.
On its face, Maryland's 15% plan achieves the required 15% VOC emission
reduction to meet Maryland's portion of the regional multi-state plan
to achieve the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the Act.
However, there are measures included in the Maryland 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 full
approval, EPA has determined that the submittal for Maryland contains
enough of the required structure to warrant conditional approval.
Furthermore, the July 12, 1995 submittal strengthens the SIP.
Based on EPA's preliminary review of the draft revised regional 15%
plan for the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area, sent to
EPA for comment by the State on March 4, 1997, EPA believes that the
amount of VOC reduction that Maryland needs to satisfy the 15% ROP
requirement in the Metropolitan Washington, DC area may be lower than
the 56.4 TPD accounted for with creditable measures in the July 12,
1995 submittal. The draft revised plan includes revised information for
the 1990 base year inventory and actual growth between 1990 and 1996,
as opposed to projected growth. The effect of these revisions may lower
the amount of creditable emission reductions Maryland needs to achieve
the 15% ROP requirement.
III. Proposed Action
In light of the above deficiencies and to conform with EPA's
proposed conditional approval of Maryland's I/M program, EPA is
proposing conditional approval of this SIP revision under section
110(k)(4) of the Act.
EPA is proposing conditional approval of the Maryland 15% plan for
the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment
area if Maryland commits, in writing, within 30 days of EPA's proposal
to correct the deficiencies identified in this rulemaking. These
conditions are described below. If the State does not make the required
written commitment to EPA within 30 days, EPA is proposing in the
alternative to disapprove the 15% plan SIP revision. If the State does
make a timely commitment, but the conditions are not met by the
specified date within one year, EPA is proposing that the rulemaking
will convert to a final disapproval. EPA would notify Maryland by
letter that the conditions have not been met and that the conditional
approval of the 15% plan has converted to a disapproval. Each of the
conditions must be fulfilled by Maryland and submitted to EPA as an
amendment to the SIP. If Maryland corrects the deficiencies within one
year of conditional approval, and submits a revised 15% plan as a SIP
revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to fully approve the revision. In
order to make this 15% plan approvable, Maryland must fulfill the
following conditions by no later than 12 months after EPA's final
conditional approval:
1. Maryland's plan must account for growth in point sources.
2. Maryland must meet the conditions listed in the October 31, 1996
conditional I/M rulemaking notice, including its commitment to 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% VOC
Reductions from I/M in 1999--Supplemental Guidance,'' from Gay
MacGregor and Sally Shaver dated December 23, 1996.
3. Maryland must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable
reductions from RFG and Tier I in accordance with EPA guidance.
4. Maryland must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with a
determination using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit
calculations that the 56.4 TPD reduction, supported through creditable
emission measures in the submittal, satisfies Maryland's 15% ROP
requirement for the Metropolitan Washington, DC area.
After making all the necessary corrections to establish the
creditability of chosen control measures, Maryland must demonstrate
that 15% emission reduction is obtained in the Washington, DC
nonattainment area as required by section 182(b)(1) of the Act and in
accordance with EPA's policies and guidance.
Further, EPA makes this conditional approval of the 15% plan
contingent upon Maryland maintaining a mandatory I/M program. EPA will
not credit any reductions toward the 15% ROP requirement from a
voluntary enhanced I/M program. Since the State's 15% plan claims 23.2
TPD from the implementation of a mandatory, centralized, IM240 plan,
any changes to I/M which would render the program voluntary or
discontinued would cause a shortfall of credits in the 15% reduction
goal. EPA is, therefore, proposing in the alternative to convert this
action automatically to a proposed disapproval should the State make
the enhanced I/M program a voluntary measure.
EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment have worked
closely
[[Page 30829]]
since the July 1995 submittal to resolve all the issues necessary to
fully approve the 15% plan. Maryland is aware of the above deficiencies
and has addressed many of the above-named deficiencies in the draft
revised plan. Maryland has stated that it intends to submit additional
information to address all deficiencies within the 15% plan. Therefore,
while some deficiencies currently remain in the 15% plan, EPA believes
that these issues will be resolved no later than 12 months after EPA's
final conditional approval. EPA will consider all information submitted
as a supplement or amendment to the July 1995 submittal prior to any
final rulemaking action.
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.
IV. Administrative Requirements
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. 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. Sec. 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. Secs. 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.
Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the CAA 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 would 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 proposed 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 section 801(a)(1)(a) of the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) as amended 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 section 804(2) of the
APA as amended.
The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the
SIP revision pertaining to the Maryland 15% plan for the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area will be based on whether it meets the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(a)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 51.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 28, 1997.
W. Michael McCabe,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 97-14717 Filed 6-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
