[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49611-49617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25228]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MD 039-3019; FRL-5896-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 15% Rate of Progress Plan for the Maryland Portion of the
Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Area
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is granting 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 reasonable further
progress (RFP, or 15% plan) requirements of the Clean Air Act (the
Act). EPA is granting conditional approval of the 15% plan, submitted
by the State of Maryland, 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 Maryland's inspection and maintenance (I/M)
program that received final conditional approval on July 31, 1997 (62
FR 40938). This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on October 23, 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 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 or via e-mail, at the following address:
donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or above to develop plans to reduce volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions by 15% 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 Maryland
portion consists of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties.
Virginia, Maryland, and the District all must demonstrate
reasonable further progress for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.
nonattainment area. These three jurisdictions, in conjunction with
municipal planning organizations, collaborated on a coordinated 15%
plan for the 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 State of Maryland submitted the 15% plan SIP revision for the
Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. nonattainment
area on July 12, 1995. On June 5, 1997, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register proposing conditional
approval of the 15% plan (62 FR 30821). EPA's rationale for granting
conditional approval to this Maryland 15% plan, and the details of the
July 12, 1995 submittal are contained in the June 5, 1997 NPR and the
accompanying technical support document and will not be restated here.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA received a letter in response to the June 5, 1997 NPR from the
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF). The
[[Page 49612]]
following discussion summarizes and responds to the comments received.
Comment 1
SCLDF commented that the Maryland 15% plan must be disapproved
because it failed to produce the 15% emission reduction of 60.7 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 Maryland's required 15%
reduction ``may be lower than the 56.4 tons per day'' is flawed. EPA
took no action on 6.3 tons of additional measures.
Response 1
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 Maryland portion of the Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. nonattainment area may be lower than the 60.7 tons/day
estimated in the July 12, 1995 SIP submittal based on new information
supplied by the State. Although this information has not been
established through an official SIP submittal, this information is
contained in Maryland's rate-of-progress SIP for the 1996-1999 time
period (known as the Post-1996 plan). Maryland 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 Maryland's 15% SIP, on the condition
that Maryland submit the requisite documentation. The State of Maryland
has agreed to meet this condition to document that the amount of
reduction needed to meet the 15% requirement is less than 56.4 tons/
day, and submitted such commitment in writing on July 3, 1997.
Comment 2
SCLDF commented that the Maryland 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 2
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 is has
already proposed and taken comment on the measures at issue, and
expects to
[[Page 49613]]
promulgate final rules by the spring of 1998. Many other parts of the
SIP, including state measures, typically 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 3
EPA has improperly suggested that SIPs can be approved if the state
has failed to demonstrate approvability. In this regard, EPA has not
been able to verify Maryland's emission reduction credit claims for
Tier I or Stage II vapor recovery, but has nonetheless stated that it
has no reason to dispute the credit claimed by Maryland and is
therefore approving the 15% plan. An absence of statutorily required
documentation requires disapproval.
Response 3
EPA believes Maryland has demonstrated that it has appropriately
modeled its mobile source program benefits, through proper use of EPA's
MOBILE emissions factor estimation model, combined with state vehicle
miles of travel estimates. It is not practical to submit the hundreds
or even thousands of modeling input and output runs needed to evaluate
the mobile source-related portions of the 15% rate-of-progress SIP.
Maryland instead submitted to EPA a list of the variables and
assumptions utilized in its MOBILE modeling analysis, along with sample
model input and output scenarios.
While the SIP does not contain sufficient data to reconstruct the
analysis and, therefore, to independently verify the State's claims,
EPA believes the State's methodology is sound. However, EPA has
deferred the specific results of that methodology, in part, to the
State.
Comment 4
SCLDF commented that it is unlawful for EPA to allow substantial
credit from an I/M program that is not before the agency. The 15% plan
before EPA was submitted on July 12, 1995, and thus does not
incorporate Maryland's current I/M plan which was submitted in March
1996. Also, it is unlawful to allow postponements under the National
Highway System Designation Act (NHSDA) for an area that did not submit
an NHSDA-type program.
Response 4
Maryland's March 1996 I/M submittal was an amendment to the I/M
program submitted to EPA on July 11, 1995. The March I/M submittal does
not supercede the July 1995 program; thus Maryland's current I/M
program is before EPA. EPA granted conditional approval of Maryland's
I/M program on July 31, 1997. If the rules submitted from Maryland to
EPA are valid, they do not have to be submitted in a particular order.
EPA believes that test-only I/M programs like the one in Maryland
should be treated in the same manner as NHSDA state programs (test and
repair programs) with regard to 15% plan requirements. In a letter from
Mary Nichols to MDE Secretary Jane Nishida dated January 30, 1996, EPA
stated this position is justified in light of administrative and
statutory changes in the I/M requirements and the extent to which
states relied on I/M programs in their 15% submittals. EPA's approach
would have the effect of keeping a level playing field by assuring that
Maryland would not be penalized for adopting a test-only program.
Comment 5
SCLDF commented that EPA cannot postpone the deadline for achieving
the required 15% reduction any further than the current deadline of
November 15, 1999. It contends that, without conceding the legality of
a 3-year postponement of the statutory deadline of November 15, 1996
allowed by EPA, any longer postponement would be unlawful. Once a
compliance date has expired, compliance must occur in the shortest time
possible. The commenter cited various court decisions in an effort to
demonstrate that a postponement longer than three years would not
adhere to the strict standard of compliance. Also, SCLDF claimed that
postponing a requirement for reasonable further progress until after
the deadline for attainment would be unlawful.
Response 5
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 standard by which States must achieve the
15% reductions--``as soon as practicable''--is generally consistent
with the case law.
Further, EPA believes that Maryland has demonstrated that it has
met this standard. The notice of proposed rulemaking and the TSD
accompanying that proposal 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 Maryland'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 State and
EPA to develop and process the revised I/M plans. In the January 1996
letter to Secretary Nishida from Mary Nichols,
[[Page 49614]]
EPA states it will credit Maryland's test-only enhanced I/M program for
purposes of the 15% requirement. This approach enables states with
test-only programs to enhance those programs starting in 1997 while
applying credit for those programs to satisfy the 1996 15% VOC
reduction plan requirements. Maryland acted expeditiously in developing
and implementing a revised enhanced I/M program. However, the amount of
time necessary to develop and implement the I/M program rendered
impossible achieving the 15% reduction target by the end of 1996. The
addendum to the TSD showing the chronology of Maryland's I/M program
development demonstrates the necessity of the extension.
Moreover, EPA has reviewed other VOC SIP measures that are at least
theoretically available to Maryland, and has concluded that
implementation of any such measures that might be appropriate would not
accelerate the date of achieving the 15% reductions. For reasons
indicated elsewhere in the record, EPA considers the biennial I/M
program selected by Maryland to be as soon as practicable,
notwithstanding the fact that other states may choose to implement an
annual program.
Comment 6
SCLDF commented that any further delays in achieving the mandate
15% reduction from VOC control measures, including most prominently,
enhanced I/M, must not be tolerated. 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 6
EPA disagrees with this 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. Maryland moved rapidly to propose
I/M regulations and to submit to EPA on March 27, 1996 an amendment to
the I/M SIP containing those regulations. EPA granted conditional
approval of the Maryland I/M program on July 31, 1997 (62 FR 40938).
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. Maryland, 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 Maryland 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 Maryland
will comply with the statutory mandate as long as it 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). Maryland's
Post-1996 plan for the Maryland 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 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 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
[[Page 49615]]
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 Maryland
15% plan when the same deficiencies exist is acting in an arbitrary and
capricious manner of treating similar situations in such a
diametrically opposed fashion.
Response 7
EPA's proposed approval of the Maryland 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 I/M program because at the time of the July 10,
1996 rulemaking EPA had disapproved Pennsylvania's I/M submittal. In a
letter dated April 13, 1995, EPA converted the August 31, 1994
conditional approval of Pennsylvania I/M submittal to a disapproval. As
discussed above, on July 31, 1997, EPA granted conditional approval of
Maryland's I/M program in the Maryland SIP (62 FR 40938). Therefore,
the factual basis for EPA's conditional approval of Maryland's 15% plan
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 approval of the Maryland 15% plan.
III. Conditional Approval
EPA has evaluated Maryland's July 12, 1995 submittal for
consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy
and has determined, as documented in the June 5, 1997 NPR, that, on its
face, the 15% plan for the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan
Washington, D.C. nonattainment area achieves the required 15% VOC
emission reduction to meet Maryland'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 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 approval,
EPA has determined that Maryland's submittal contains enough of the
required structure to warrant conditional approval. EPA cannot grant
full approval of the Maryland 15% rate-of-progress plan under section
110(k)(3) and Part D of the Clean Air Act. Instead, EPA is granting
conditional approval of this SIP revision under section 110(k)(4) of
the Act, because the State must meet the specified conditions and
supplement its submittal to satisfy the requirements of section
182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15% rate-of-progress plan, and
because the State must supplement its submittal and demonstrate it has
achieved the required emission reductions.
The June 5, 1997 NPR listed the conditions that Maryland must meet
in order to convert the conditional approval to full approval. In a
July 3, 1997 letter to EPA, the State 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 State of
Maryland must fulfill the following conditions by no later than
September 23, 1998:
1. Maryland's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in
point sources from 1990-1996.
2. Maryland must meet the conditions listed in the October 31, 1996
proposed conditional 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. Maryland must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable
reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.
4. Maryland must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with a
demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit
calculations that the 56.4 tons/day reduction, supported through
creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies
Maryland'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, Maryland must demonstrate
that 15% emission reduction is obtained in the Maryland 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 approval of the Maryland 15% plan
as a revision to the Maryland SIP. This rulemaking action will not
convert to full approval until Maryland 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
Maryland satisfies the conditions of the I/M rulemaking and receives
final approval of I/M, EPA will grant final approval of the 15% plan
(assuming that the other conditions have been met). Conversely, if EPA
disapproves the Maryland I/M program, EPA's conditional approval of the
15% plan would also convert to a 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 on that revision.
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. Any changes to I/M which would render
the program voluntary or discontinued would cause a shortfall of
credits in the 15% reduction goal. Therefore, this action will convert
automatically to a disapproval should the State make the enhanced I/M
program a voluntary measure.
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.
[[Page 49616]]
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 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 Maryland portion of the
Metropolitan Washington D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area, must be
filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit
by November 24, 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,
Incorporation by reference, Ozone.
Dated: September 12, 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 V--Maryland
2. Section 52.1072 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1072 Conditional approval.
* * * * *
(b) The State of Maryland's July 12, 1995 submittal for the 15
Percent Rate of Progress Plan (15% plan) for the Maryland portion of
the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone nonattainment area, is
conditionally approved based on certain contingencies. The conditions
for approvability are as follows:
(1) Maryland's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in
point sources from 1990-1996.
(2) Maryland must meet the conditions listed in the October 31,
1996 proposed conditional 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) Maryland must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable
reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.
(4) Maryland must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with
a demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and
credit calculations that the 56.4 tons/day reduction, supported through
creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies
Maryland's 15% ROP requirement for the
[[Page 49617]]
Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment area.
[FR Doc. 97-25228 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
