[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 
[email protected]. 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