Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2085

§ 92.18 Judicial review. 

A final Notice of Assessment issued 

under the procedures in this subpart 

may be subject to judicial review 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq.

Dated: January 6, 2005. 

Henrietta Holsman Fore, 

Director, United States Mint.

[FR Doc. 05–543 Filed 1–11–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–37–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[RME No. R03–OAR–2004–DC–0009; FRL–

7861–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia; Post 

1996 and Post 1999 Rate-of-Progress 

Plans, Contingency Measures, 

Transportation Control Measures, VMT 

Offset, and 1990 Base Year Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia 

and the District of Columbia for the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC severe 1-

hour ozone nonattainment area (the 

Washington area). These revisions 

include the post 1996–1999 and post 

1999–2005 rate-of-progress (ROP) plans, 

changes to the 1990 base year inventory, 

a contingency measures plan, certain 

transportation control measures (TCMs), 

and a demonstration that each SIP 

contains sufficient transportation 

control measures to offset growth in 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as 

necessary to demonstrate ROP and 

attainment of the 1-hour national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone. The intended effect of this 

action is to propose approval of 

revisions submitted to satisfy the SIP 

requirements of 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as severe. 

These revisions are being proposed for 

approval in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03–OAR–

2004–DC–0009 by one of the following 

methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Agency Web site: http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/ RME, 

EPA’s electronic public docket and 

comment system, is EPA’s preferred 

method for receiving comments. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

C. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.

D. Mail: R03–OAR–2004–DC–0009, 

Makeba Morris, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

E. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

RME ID No. R03–OAR–2004–DC–0009. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http://

www.docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through RME, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA RME 

and the Federal regulations.gov Web 

sites are an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through RME or regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the RME 

index at http://www.docket.epa.gov/

rmepub/. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in RME or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia 

Department of Public Health, Air 

Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20002; Maryland 

Department of the Environment, 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, 

Baltimore, Maryland, 21230, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21224; and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The use of 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ in this document 

refers to EPA. The use of ‘‘States’’ in this 

document refers to the State of 

Maryland, the Commonwealth of 

Virginia and the District of Columbia.

Outline 

I. The Action EPA is Proposing Today 

II. Background 

A. What is the Washington D.C. 1–Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area (the 

Washington area)? 

B. What Previous Action Has EPA Taken 

on the Post 1996–1999 ROP Plans? 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Action EPA 

Is Taking Today? 

III. Amendments to the 1990 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory 

IV. Post 1996–1999 and Post 1999–2005 ROP 

Plans 

A. What Agencies/ and Organizations 

Developed the Post 1996–1999 and Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans for the 

Washington Area? 

B. What ROP Requirements are Applicable 

to the Washington Area after 1996? 

C. What Are the Basic Components of a 

ROP Plan? 

D. EPA’s Evaluation of the Post 1996–1999 

ROP Plans for the Washington Area 

E. EPA’s Evaluation of the Post 1999–2005 

ROP Plans for the Washington Area 

F. Do the Post 1996–1999 and Post 1999–

2005 ROP Plans for the Washington Area 

Meet the Requirements for NOX

Substitution? 

V. Contingency Measures Plans 

A. What are the Contingency Measures 

Implemented to Address the Failure to 

Attain by November 15, 1999 and for the 

Post 1996–1999 ROP Plans? 

B. What Are the Contingency Measures and 

Plan for Post-1999 ROP Plans and for 

Failure to Attain by November 15, 2005?

2086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

VI. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Offset SIP 

and Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs) 

A. What Is a VMT Offset SIP? 

B. EPA’s Analysis of VMT Offset SIP in the 

2004 SIP Revisions? 

C. What TCMs Are Part of the SIP? 

VII. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEBs) 

A. Background for Transportation 

Conformity 

B. What Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Currently Apply in the Washington Area 

C. Effect of This Action on the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 

Washington Area 

D. Review of the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in the Post 1996–1999 ROP and 

Post 1999–2005 ROP Plans 

E. What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets in the ROP Plans? 

VIII. Prerequisites for Approval for the Post 

1996–1999 and Post 1999–2005 ROP 

Plans 

IX. Proposed Actions 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The Action EPA Is Proposing Today 

The EPA is proposing approval of the 

post 1996–1999 ROP plans, the post 

1999–2005 ROP plans and the 

contingency measure plans for both 

ROP and attainment submitted by the 

District of Columbia, Maryland and 

Virginia (‘‘the States’’) for the 

Washington area. In addition, EPA is 

also proposing approval of the States’

revisions to the 1990 base year 

emissions inventory, TCMs, and a 

demonstration that the SIP for each 

State contains sufficient TCMs to offset 

growth in VMT as necessary to achieve 

ROP and to attain the ozone NAAQS 

(commonly referred to as the VMT 

Offset SIP). Tables 1 and 2 identify the 

initial submittal dates and the dates on 

which the States’ submitted 

amendments for these plans and 

measures:

TABLE 1.—POST 1996–1999 ROP PLANS FROM THE STATES

DC MD 1 VA 

Initial submittal dates ..................... November 10, 1997 ...................... December 24, 1997 ...................... December 19, 1997. 

Amended submittal dates .............. May 25, 1999 ................................ May 20, 1999 ................................ May 25, 1999. 

1 Maryland SIP revision submittals labeled as 97–04 and 99–12. 

The post 1996–1999 ROP Plan SIP 

revisions also include certain TCMs, 

specifically those TCMs identified in 

Appendix H of the States’ submittals.

TABLE 2.—1999–2005 ROP PLANS, CONTINGENCY MEASURES PLAN, AMENDMENTS TO THE 1990 BASE YEAR

INVENTORY, AND VMT OFFSET PLANS

DC MD 2 VA 

Initial submittal dates ..................... September 5, 2003 ....................... September 2, 2003 ....................... August 19, 2003. 

Amended submittal dates .............. February 25, 2004 ........................ February 24, 2004 ........................ February 25, 2004. 

2 Maryland SIP revision submittals labeled as 03–05 and 04–01. 

Hereafter, the SIP revisions listed in 

Table 2 of this document will be called 

the ‘‘2004 SIP revisions.’’ The States’

2004 SIP revisions include the post 

1999–2005 ROP plans, the VMT Offset 

SIPs, revisions to the 1990 base year 

emissions inventory, and the 

contingency measures plans for ROP 

and attainment for the Washington area. 

The 2004 SIP revisions also include 

certain TCMs, namely those TCMs 

identified in Appendix J of the SIP 

revision submittals. The 2004 SIP 

revisions also include the States’

attainment demonstration plans for the 

Washington area. Those attainment 

demonstration plans are the subject of a 

separate rulemaking action. 

II. Background 

A. What Is the Washington DC 1–Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area? 

The Washington area is comprised of 

the entire District of Columbia (the 

District), a portion of Maryland (Calvert, 

Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and 

Prince George’s Counties), and a portion 

of Virginia (Alexandria, Arlington 

County, Fairfax, Fairfax County, Falls 

Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, 

Prince William County, and Stafford 

County).

B. What Previous Action Has EPA 

Taken on the Post 1996–1999 ROP 

Plans? 

On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 586), the 

EPA approved the States’ post 1996–

1999 ROP plans, attainment 

demonstration plans (those submitted 

during 1998 and 2000) and an 

attainment date extension for the 

Washington area. A petition for review 

of that final rule was filed. On July 2, 

2002, the United States Courts of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (the court) ruled on the petition 

and vacated our January 3, 2001 

approval of the States’ attainment 

demonstrations, their 1996–1999 ROP 

plans and the attainment date extension. 

(See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 294 F.3d 

155, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (‘‘Sierra Club 

I’’). Among other things, the court said 

that the EPA was without authority to 

extend the Washington area’s 

attainment deadline unless it also 

ordered the area to be reclassified as a 

‘‘severe’’ area. The court also found that 

the attainment demonstration and ROP 

plans were deficient because neither 

contained approved contingency 

measures as required by sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). Id. at 164. 

Furthermore, the court determined that 

in addition to a 9 percent reduction in 

baseline emissions from 1996 to 1999, 

an area with an attainment date in 2005 

must have an approved ROP plan that 

demonstrates ROP to 2005. Id. at 163. 

The Washington area’s post 1996–1999 

ROP plan, that had been submitted by 

each of the States, demonstrated ROP 

only through 1999. 

On January 24, 2003 (68 FR 3410), 

EPA published a final rule determining 

that the Washington area failed to attain 

the November 15, 1999 ozone 

attainment deadline for serious areas 

and reclassifying the Washington area 

from serious to severe ozone 

nonattainment. That final rule also 

specified the additional SIP elements 

mandated by the CAA for that severe 

area, that would have to be adopted and 

submitted as SIP revisions by the States 

for the Washington area as a result of its 

reclassification to severe.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2087

3On April 16, 2004, the court issued an order 

revising the February 3, 2004 opinion to address a 

petition for rehearing and leaving its decision to 

vacate and remand the conditional approval to EPA 

intact. Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d 296, 301–304 

(D.C. Cir.) 2004), amended by No. 03–1084, 2004 

WL 877850 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 16, 2004).

4 Joint Memorandum dated January 18, 2002, 

From John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning & Standards, and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, 

Director of Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

‘‘Policy Guidance for the Use of MOBILE6 in SIP 

Development and Transportation Conformity’’.

On April 17, 2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA 

conditionally approved the States’ post 

1996–1999 ROP plans and those 

versions of the attainment 

demonstration plans submitted during 

1998 and 2000, contingent upon the 

States fulfilling commitments they made 

to submit the additional elements 

required of SIPs for a severe area within 

one year. The Sierra Club filed a 

petition for review of that final rule 

alleging, among other things, that EPA 

could not lawfully conditionally 

approve these SIP revisions due to a 

lack of specificity in the States’

commitment letters, and that EPA 

should require the post 1996–1999 ROP 

plans be revised to use the latest mobile 

sources emission factor model. 

On February 3, 2004, the court ruled 

on that petition and issued its opinion 

vacating our April 17, 2003 rule. The 

court granted the petition solely on the 

issue that use of a conditional approval 

was not appropriate nor available to 

EPA on these SIPs. The court denied the 

petition for review in all other respects. 

(See Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d at 

301–04 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (‘‘Sierra Club 

II’’).3 On April 23, 2004, the court 

issued its mandate, thereby 

relinquishing jurisdiction over the post 

1996–1999 ROP plans and the 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions 

and remanding them back to EPA.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Action 

EPA Is Taking Today? 

Given that the States have now 

adopted and submitted contingency 

measures plans and ROP plans through 

to the 2005 attainment year, EPA is 

proposing to approve the post 1996–

1999 ROP plans that applied to the 

Washington area pursuant to the area’s 

initial classification as a serious ozone 

nonattainment area. In addition, EPA is 

proposing approval of the States’

revisions to the 1990 base year 

emissions inventory. EPA is also 

proposing to approve the 2004 SIP 

revisions listed in Table 2 of this 

document, namely the post 1999–2005 

ROP plans, contingency measures plans, 

and VMT offset plans that apply to the 

Washington area as a result of its 

reclassification to severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment. The contingency 

measure plans identify those measures 

that were implemented as a 

consequence of the failure of the 

Washington area to meet its original 

November 15, 1999 serious area 

attainment date, and also identify those 

adopted measures that will be 

implemented should the now 

reclassified Washington area fail to 

attain the1-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

severe area deadline date of November 

15, 2005 or if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress (RFP) or 

meet a ROP milestone. In addition, EPA 

is proposing to approve certain TCMs 

which were made part of the States’ post 

1996–1999 ROP plans as well as part of 

the 2004 SIP revisions. These SIP 

revisions and our rationale for 

proposing to approve them are 

discussed in more detail in the 

subsequent sections of this document. 

III. Amendments to the 1990 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory 

EPA mandated the use of the 

MOBILE6 model for the post-1999 ROP 

plan development and also required 

associated revisions to the 1990 base 

year inventory. (See 68 FR at 3418, 

January 24, 2003; and the joint 

memorandum issued by EPA’s Office of 

Air Quality Planning & Standards and 

Office of Transportation & Air Quality, 

January 18, 2002) 4 As we explained in 

our January 24, 2003 final rule, 

requiring the use of MOBILE6 to 

calculate the 2002 and 2005 ROP target 

levels will ‘‘necessitate a revision to the 

1990 base year inventory which is, 

among other things, the planning base 

line from which the 2002 and 2005 ROP 

targets are calculated.’’ In their 2004 SIP 

revisions, the States updated the 1990 

base year inventory to reflect the use of 

MOBILE6. This affected the base year 

on-road mobile source inventory as well 

as the emissions resulting from vehicle 

refueling and the benefits of stage II 

vapor recovery and of reformulated 

gasoline (RFG). The States also made 

other changes as a result of new 

inventory methods and information.

The States added several new sources 

to the point source inventory, that is, 

large stationary sources of VOC and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions, as 

result of the area’s January 24, 2003 

reclassification to severe ozone 

nonattainment. This reclassification 

lowered the threshold of what is 

considered a major stationary source to 

25 tons per year (TPY) from 50 TPY. 

This resulted in additional sources 

being added to the point source 

inventory for NOX emissions. The 

threshold for inclusion in the point 

source inventory for VOC emissions had 

already been 10 TPY of VOC emissions 

and remains at this level. 

The States also updated the area and 

nonroad portion of the inventory for 

aircraft emissions and ground support 

equipment at commercial airports using 

the Emissions Dispersion Modeling 

System (EDMS) to recompute the 1990 

base year emissions. The Federal 

Aviation Administration requires EDMS 

as the methodology for performing air 

quality emissions and air quality 

analyses modeling for aviation sources. 

It further requires airport sponsors to 

use the most recent EDMS model to 

calculate all emissions at airports to 

satisfy the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the CAA’s general 

conformity requirements, and other 

statutorily mandated analyses. EPA has 

endorsed the use of EDMS. 

The prior methodology used by the 

States for the 1990 inventory, as 

compared to EDMS, resulted in higher 

base year NOX emissions and provided 

for higher allowable levels of NOX

emissions for these source categories. 

Therefore, the prior methodology would 

have set a higher NOX emissions budget 

against which general conformity would 

be determined in future years’ analyses. 

However, as previously noted, EDMS is 

the required methodology for 

performing the future years’ general 

conformity analyses, themselves. The 

States’ revisions to update and 

recompute the SIPs’ 1990 base year area 

and nonroad inventory for aircraft 

emissions and ground support 

equipment at commercial airports using 

EDMS provide for consistency between 

the methodologies used to establish the 

SIPs’ allowable NOX growth budget and 

for performing future year’s general 

conformity analyses. The States have 

also based the 2002 and 2005 year area 

aircraft emissions and ground support 

equipment at commercial airports 

portions of the area and nonroad portion 

of the inventory upon EDMS 

projections. EPA is proposing to 

approve the changes to the 1990 base 

year inventories.

IV. Post 1996–1999 and Post 1999–2005 

ROP Plans 

A. What Agencies and Organizations 

Developed the Post 1996–1999 and Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans for the 

Washington Area? 

The District, Virginia and Maryland 

must demonstrate reasonable further 

progress (RFP) for the Washington area. 

These jurisdictions, under the auspices 

of the Metropolitan Washington Air 

Quality Committee (MWAQC), with the 

assistance of the Metropolitan

2088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

5Any reductions in 1990 baseline emissions due 

to the corrections in vehicle inspection and 

maintenance programs under section 182(a)(2)(B) 

are also treated excluded from counting towards the 

required 15 percent reduction (see CAA section 

182(b)(1)(D)(iv)). There were no required 

corrections in vehicle inspection and maintenance 

programs in the Washington area and this provision 

will not be discussed further in this document.

6With the exception of 1999 when NOX

substitution is used. In that case, for the 1999 VOC 

target level, the starting point is the 1996 VOC 

target level from the 15 percent plan, but for the 

1999 NOX target level the 1990 ROP NOX inventory 

is used in lieu of a 1996 target level because the 

15 percent plan does not set a NOX target level for 

1996.

Washington Council of Governments 

(COG), collaborated on a coordinated 

post 1996–1999 ROP plan and later a 

coordinated post 1999–2005 ROP plan 

for the Washington area. The MWAQC 

includes state and local elected officials 

and representatives of the District’s 

Department of Health (DoH), the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE), the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) and the National Capital 

Region Transportation Planning Board 

(TPB). The CAA provides for such 

interstate coordination for multi-state 

nonattainment areas. Because control 

strategy SIPs, such as the ROP plans, 

must establish and identify motor 

vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for 

use in conformity determinations of 

transportation improvement plans, 

municipal planning organizations have 

historically been involved in air quality 

planning in the Washington area. The 

MWAQC ensures consultation with the 

TPB during the development of the 

Washington area ROP plans and their 

associated MVEBs. The post 1996–1999 

ROP plan and the post 1999–2005 ROP 

plan each include the emission target 

levels that demonstrate ROP for the 

milestone year(s), the projections of 

growth and the total amount of 

creditable reductions required for the 

entire Washington area. The District, 

Maryland and Virginia agreed to 

apportion this total amount of required 

creditable reductions among 

themselves. Although both the ROP 

plans were developed on an area-wide 

basis, each State met the CAA 

requirements by submitting the post 

1996–1999 ROP plan and the post 1999–

2005 ROP plan to the EPA as revisions 

to its SIP. 

B. What ROP Requirements Are 

Applicable to the Washington Area 

After 1996? 

The CAA requires that serious and 

above ozone nonattainment areas 

develop plans to reduce area-wide VOC 

base line emissions after 1996 by 3 

percent per year (averaged over 

consecutive 3-year periods) until the 

year of the attainment date required for 

that classification of nonattainment 

area. The Washington area was initially 

classified as a serious ozone 

nonattainment area with an attainment 

date of November 15, 1999. As such, the 

Washington area States had and 

continue to have a requirement that a 

post 1996–1999 ROP plan be SIPapproved which demonstrates a 9 

percent reduction in baseline emissions 

by 1999. 

As previously noted, EPA published a 

final rule reclassifying the Washington 

area to severe ozone nonattainment on 

January 24, 2003, effective March 25, 

2003. The statutory attainment date for 

severe areas is November 15, 2005. The 

final rule reclassifying the Washington 

area to severe ozone nonattainment 

imposed additional requirements on the 

Washington area including, among other 

things, a post 1999–2005 ROP plan to 

achieve an additional 9 percent 

reduction in base line emissions 

between 1999 and 2002, and, a further 

9 percent reduction between 2002 and 

2005. This 9 percent reduction 

requirement is a continuation of the 

ROP requirement for a 15 percent 

reduction in VOC post 1990–1996. For 

post 1996 and post 1999 ROP plans, the 

Act allows the substitution of NOX

emissions reductions for VOC emission 

reductions where equivalent air quality 

benefits are achieved as determined 

using the applicable EPA guidance.

C. What Are the Basic Components of a 

ROP Plan? 

1. An Overview—A ROP plan consists 

of a plan to achieve a target level of 

emissions by each of the milestone years 

covered by the plan. There are several 

important emission inventories and 

calculations associated with the plan 

including the base year emissions 

inventory, future year projection 

inventories, and target level 

calculations. After accounting for 

growth in emissions after 1990, the plan 

must also demonstrate that future year 

emissions with be held to levels by the 

creditable control programs’ emissions 

reductions to an amount that is less than 

or equal to the applicable target level. 

One method for demonstrating this is to 

determine how many emission 

reductions are required by subtracting 

the target level from the future year 

uncontrolled emissions. 

2. How is the Target Level 

Determined?—EPA has issued guidance 

on how to calculate the target levels. 

This guidance outlines a process for 

calculating a target level. In summary, 

the State first calculates the 1996 VOC 

target level that corresponds to the 15 

percent reduction in VOC baseline 

emissions (the 15 percent plan) required 

under section 182(b)(1) of the Act. The 

target level starts with the 1990 ROP 

VOC inventory of VOC. The 1996 VOC 

target level equals the 1990 ROP VOC 

inventory minus: 

(a) The ‘‘noncreditable reductions’’

due to the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Control Program (FMVCP) promulgated 

by January 1, 1990, (‘‘FMVCP Tier 0’’) 

and Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) 

regulations required under section 

211(h) of the Act (Phase 2 RVP), 

(b) Any noncreditable reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

rule correction reductions required by 

section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act,5 and,

(c) An amount equal to the required 

15 percent reduction in baseline VOC 

emissions. 

The required 15 percent reduction in 

baseline VOC emissions is not 

computed as 15 percent of the 1990 ROP 

VOC emissions inventory. Because 

section 182(b)(1)(C) defines ‘‘base line 

emissions’’ as the 1990 ROP inventory 

less those 1990 calendar year emissions 

that would be eliminated by the FMVCP 

Tier 0 and Phase 2 RVP programs by the 

milestone year, an ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 base 

year inventory must be computed to 

reduce the 1990 ROP inventory by the 

amount of emissions that would be 

eliminated by implementation of the 

FMVCP Tier 0 and Phase 2 RVP 

programs. The required 15 percent 

reduction in baseline VOC emissions is, 

therefore, 15 percent of the ‘‘adjusted’’

1990 base year inventory for 1996. 

For subsequent milestone years, a 

similar process is used to compute the 

target level of emissions. For each three 

year period after 1996, the ‘‘fleet 

turnover correction’’ (FTC) (that amount 

of base line emission eliminated by 

FMVCP Tier 0 and Phase 2 RVP 

programs during that three year period) 

is computed and the ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 

base year inventory is computed (which 

is the ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 base year 

inventory for the prior milestone year 

minus the relevant FTC). The target 

level for a milestone year is the target 

level for the prior milestone year minus 

the FTC for the three-year period minus 

the required ROP reductions.6 In the 

absence of NOX substitution, the 

required post-1996 ROP reduction is 9 

percent of the adjusted 1990 VOC base 

year inventory for the milestone year in 

question. With NOX substitution, the 

required post-1996 ROP VOC reductions 

can be an amount less than 9 percent as 

long as the percentage of NOX

substituted plus the VOC ROP 

percentage equals or exceeds 9 and as 

long as the amount of NOX substituted

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2089

7 Joint Memorandum dated January 18, 2002, 

from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality 

Planning & Standards, and Margo Tsirigotis Oge, 

Director of Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 

‘‘Policy Guidance for the Use of MOBILE6 in SIP 

Development and Transportation Conformity’’.

meets EPA’s December 1993 NOX

Substitution Guidance. With NOX

substitution, a NOX target is also 

calculated along the same lines as for a 

VOC target.

Table 3 summarizes the process for 

computing ROP target levels continued 

through the 2005 milestone year:

TABLE 3.—GENERAL PROCESS FOR COMPUTING ROP TARGET LEVELS

Row Description How computed 

1 .............. 1990 ROP Inventory ...................................................................... 1990 base year inventory less biogenic emissions and sources 

outside the nonattainment area. 

2 .............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 1996 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 1996 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

3 .............. Emissions eliminated through 1996 by Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 

RVP Programs.

Row 1 minus Row 2 (see Note 1). 

4 .............. Reductions from RACT Rule Corrections ..................................... Amount 1990 base year emissions reduced by required RACT 

rule corrections (see Note 1). 

5 .............. Required 15 Percent Reduction .................................................... 0.15 times Row 2. 

6 .............. 1996 Target Level ......................................................................... Row 1 minus Rows 3, 4 and 5. 

7 .............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 1999 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 1999 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

8 .............. Fleet Turnover Correction (FTC) for 1999 .................................... Row 2 minus Row 7 (see Note 2). 

9 .............. Required ROP Reduction for 1999 ............................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 7 (see Note 3). 

10 ............ 1999 Target Level ......................................................................... Row 6 minus Rows 8 and 9 (See Note 4). 

11 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 2002 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2002 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

12 ............ FTC for 2002 ................................................................................. Row 7 minus Row 11. 

13 ............ Required ROP Reduction for 2002 ............................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 11 (see Note 2). 

14 ............ 2002 Target Level ......................................................................... Row 10 minus Rows 12 and 13. 

15 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 2005 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2005 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

16 ............ FTC for 2005 ................................................................................. Row 15 minus Row 11.

17 ............ Required ROP Reduction for 2005 ............................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 15 (see Note 2). 

18 ............ 2005 Target Level ......................................................................... Row 14 minus Rows 16 and 17 (see Note 3). 

Note 1. With NOX substitution this need not be computed for any 1999 or later NOX target levels. Also, because RACT was not required on 

sources of NOX prior to 1990, there were no RACT rule corrections that might reduce 1990 base line NOX emissions and thus this need not be 

computed for any 1999 or later NOX target levels. 

Note 2. Formula shown for 1999 applies to VOC. When using NOX substitution the FTC for 1999 is Row 1 minus Row 7. 

Note 3. For any three-year, post-1999 period, States are free to choose the amount of NOX substituted as long as the percentage of VOC plus 

the percentage of NOX reduction equals 9 percent (0.09), and, as long as the plan adheres to the other restraints on the amount of NOX substituted found in EPA’s December 1993 NOX Substitution Guidance. 

Note 4. When NOX substitution is used, the 1999 target level starts with the 1990 ROP inventory, not a 1996 target level, and hence would be 

Row 1 minus Rows 8 and 9. Row 4 is not relevant when computing NOX targets. 

D. EPA’s Evaluation of the Post 1996–

1999 ROP Plans for the Washington 

Area 

1. How Were the 3 Percent per Year 

Reduction Needs for the Post-1996–1999 

ROP Plans Calculated? 

A post 1996–1999 ROP plan consists 

of a plan to achieve a target level of 

emissions by November 15, 1999. As 

previously stated, there are emission 

inventories and calculations associated 

with the plan including the base year 

emission inventory, future year 

projection inventories, and target level 

calculations. The post 1996–1999 ROP 

plan also identifies the amount of 

creditable emission reductions that each 

state must achieve for the 

nonattainment area-wide plan to get a 9 

percent reduction accounting for any 

growth in emissions from 1990 to 1999. 

The EPA addressed the sufficiency of 

the Washington area’s post 1996–1999 

ROP plan base year emission inventory, 

future year projection inventories, and 

target level calculations in its previous 

notices regarding the Washington area 

attainment demonstration. (See 65 FR 

58243 September 28, 2000, 65 FR 62658, 

October 19, 2000, 68 FR 5246, February 

3, 2004, and 68 FR 19106, April 17, 

2004.) 

Although EPA requires that states use 

the latest mobile source emissions factor 

model available at the time a plan is 

developed, our policy is not to require 

states that have already submitted SIPs 

or that submitted SIPs shortly after 

MOBILE6’s release to revise these SIPs 

simply because the new motor vehicle 

emissions model becomes available. 

(See 68 FR at 19120, April 17, 2003 and 

Memorandum from EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning & Standards, January 

18, 2002.7) In the case of the 

Washington area’s post 1996–1999 ROP 

plans, the States’ SIP revisions were 

submitted in 1999 more than 3 years 

prior to the release of the MOBILE6 

model.

As stated previously, EPA 

promulgated a final action on January 3, 

2001 (66 FR 586) fully approving and a 

final action on April 17, 2003 (68 FR 

19106) conditionally approving these 

1996–1999 ROP plan SIP revisions 

which the court vacated. It is important 

to note that although the Sierra Club’s 

petition for review of our April 17, 2003 

final rule claimed, among other things, 

that the approval of the States’ 1996–

1999 ROP plans was arbitrary and 

capricious because those plans relied on 

an outdated emissions model and that 

EPA should require that the post 1996–

1999 ROP plans be revised using 

MOBILE6, in its February 3, 2004 ruling 

on the petition, the court denied the 

petition for review on this claim. (See 

Sierra Club II, 356 F.3d 296, 307–308 

(D.C. Cir. 2004). The court upheld EPA’s 

decision not to require the Washington 

area States to revise their post 1996–

1999 ROP plans to reflect MOBILE6. 

Therefore, EPA believes that the ROP 

target levels of the post 1996–1999 ROP 

plans are approvable.

2090 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2. What Control Strategies Are the 

District, Maryland and Virginia 

Including in the Post 1996–1999 ROP 

Plan? 

The post 1996–1999 ROP plan 

describes the emission reduction credits 

that the Washington area jurisdictions 

are claiming toward their 9 percent 

reduction requirement. We can credit 

reductions for the ROP requirement for 

rules promulgated by EPA and for state 

measures we have approved as SIP 

revisions. The post 1996–1999 ROP plan 

control measures for the Washington 

area are listed in Tables 4 and 5 of this 

document and described in more detail 

in the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for this rulemaking. 

3. What Are the Total Reductions in the 

1996–1999 ROP Plan? 

Table 6 summarizes the VOC and 

NOX creditable measures in Maryland’s, 

Virginia’s and the District’s 1996–1999 

ROP plan for the Washington area.

TABLE 4.—CREDITABLE VOC EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE POST 1996–1999 ROP PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

[Tons/day] 

Measure DC MD VA 

Tier 1 FMVCP .................................................................................................................................................................. 1.4 5.5 5.9 

RFG Refueling Benefits ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.9 0.7 

National low emission vehicle (NLEV) ............................................................................................................................ 0.2 0.6 1.3 

Reformulated Gasoline (on/off road) ............................................................................................................................... 2.2 7.9 8.0 

Surface Cleaning/Degreasing .......................................................................................................................................... 0.0 2.9 0.0 

Autobody Refinishing ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.5 3.8 2.7 

AIM ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.6 6.6 5.6 

Consumer Products ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.6 2.2 1.9 

Seasonal Open Burning Ban ........................................................................................................................................... 0.0 3.7 2.6 

Graphic Arts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.9 1.0 1.5 

Landfill Regulations ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.3 

Non-CTG RACT to 50 TPY ............................................................................................................................................. 0.0 0.4 0.4 

RACT on Additional Sources >25 TPY and <50 TPY .................................................................................................... N/A 0.3 0.0 

Stage II Vapor Recovery ................................................................................................................................................. 0.0 8.9 7.9 

Stage I Enhancement (excluding Loudoun County, VA) ................................................................................................ 0.0 0.9 0.3 

Federal Non-road Gasoline Engine Standards ............................................................................................................... 0.9 6.3 6.8 

TCMs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Enhanced I/M ................................................................................................................................................................... 3.9 18.0 17.9 

Total Creditable Reductions ..................................................................................................................................... 11.8 70.0 63.9 

TABLE 5.—CREDITABLE NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE POST 1996–1999 ROP PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

[Tons/day] 

Measure DC MD VA 

Enhanced I/M ................................................................................................................................................................... 2.4 14.8 16.9 

Tier 1 ................................................................................................................................................................................ 2.5 13.7 14.7 

NLEV ................................................................................................................................................................................ .2 0.3 1.5 

Reformulated Gasoline (on-road) .................................................................................................................................... 0.0 0.1 0.1 

Federal Non-road Gasoline Engine Standards ............................................................................................................... ¥0.1 ¥0.4 ¥0.5 

Federal Non-road Diesel Engine Standards ................................................................................................................... 0.4 3.7 3.2 

State NOX RACT/beyond NOX RACT rules .................................................................................................................... 2.1 67.9 12.0 

Open Burning Ban ........................................................................................................................................................... 0 0.8 0.6 

TCMs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0 0.2 0.2 

Total Creditable Reductions ..................................................................................................................................... 7.5 101.1 48.7 

TABLE 6.—CREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS COMPARED TO THE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS NEEDED FOR THE POST

1996–1999 ROP PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

[Tons/day] 

DC MD VA 

Areawide 

total 

VOC Reductions in Plan .................................................................................................................................. 11.8 70.0 63.9 145.7 

Area-wide Reduction Needs ............................................................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ 131.5 

Surplus ............................................................................................................................................................. ............ ............ ............ 14.2 

NOX Reductions in Plan .................................................................................................................................. 7.5 101.1 48.7 157.3 

Area-wide Reduction Needs ............................................................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ 150.6 

Surplus ............................................................................................................................................................. ............ ............ ............ 6.7 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2091

8To facilitate comparison by the reader of Tables 

7a and 7b with Table 3, the rows identifiers in the 

following two tables remain the same as those for 

the corresponding item in Table 3.

E. EPA’s Evaluation of the of the Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans for the 

Washington Area 

1. What Effect Do the Amendments to 

the 1990 Base Year Have on the Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans 

Unlike the post 1996–1999 ROP plan, 

EPA explicitly requires that the States 

develop the post 1999–2005 ROP plan 

using the updated MOBILE6 emission 

factor model because the requirement 

for such a plan came due for the 

Washington area after the release of 

MOBILE6. (See 68 FR 3410 at 3420, 

January 24, 2003.) The 1990 ROP and 

‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 base year inventories, 

as discussed in section IV. C. this 

document, are significantly dependent 

upon the mobile source emission factor 

model. The mobile source emission 

factor model is the tool used to 

determine the amount of 1990 baseline 

emissions that would be eliminated by 

the pertinent milestone year due to the 

Tier 0 FMVCP and Phase 2 RVP 

programs, and, thus, is a fundamental 

aspect of the development of the FTC 

and ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 base year 

inventories. In the guidance that we 

provided for the post 1999–2005 ROP 

plan under the reclassification of the 

Washington area to severe, we 

recognized that the 1990 ROP and 

adjusted 1990 base year inventories and 

the 1996 and 1999 target levels would 

have to be re-computed in order to 

determine the target levels for the post 

1999 ROP requirements. We had 

identified that in addition to motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the 2002 

and 2005 milestone years, development 

of the required post 1999 ROP plan 

would also require the development of 

revisions to the 1990 base year 

emissions inventories and development 

of up to seven 1990 adjusted inventories 

(VOC for 1996, VOC and NOX for 1999, 

VOC and NOX for 2002, plus VOC and 

NOX for 2005). See 67 FR 68805 at 

68811, November 13, 2003. 

As shown in Table 3 of this 

document, the 1999 target level is the 

1996 target level minus a percentage of 

the adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory 

for 1999 and the FTC for 1999; and the 

1996 target level is the 1990 ROP 

Inventory minus the following three 

amounts: 

(a) 15 percent of the ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 

base year inventory for 1996; 

(b) Reductions from RACT rule 

corrections; and 

(c) Emissions eliminated through 

1996 by Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP 

programs. 

Therefore, the 1999 target level is just 

the 1990 ROP inventory minus the 

following five amounts: 

(1) 15 percent of the ‘‘adjusted’’ 1990 

base year inventory for 1996; 

(2) Reductions from RACT rule 

corrections; 

(3) Emissions eliminated through 

1996 by Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP 

programs; 

(4) A percentage of the ‘‘adjusted’’

1990 Base Year Inventory for 1999; and 

(5) The FTC for 1999. 

To continue this process for 2002 and 

2005, the steps outlined in Table 3 of 

this document entitled, ‘‘General 

Process for Computing ROP Target 

Levels’’ are used for the 2002 and 2005 

milestone targets as shown in Tables 7a 

and 7b.8

TABLE 7A.—GENERAL PROCESS FOR COMPUTING 2002 AND 2005 ROP VOC TARGET LEVELS

Row Description How computed 

1 .............. 1990 VOC ROP Inventory ............................................................. 1990 base year inventory less biogenic emissions and sources 

outside the nonattainment area. 

2 .............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory for 1996 ...................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 1996 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

3 .............. VOC Emissions eliminated through 1996 by Tier 0 FMVCP/

Phase 2 RVP Programs.

Row 1 minus Row 2. 

4 .............. VOC Reductions from RACT Rule Corrections ............................ Amount 1990 base year emissions reduced by required RACT 

rule corrections. 

5 .............. Required 15 Percent VOC Reduction ........................................... 0.15 times Row 2. 

7 .............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory for 1999 ...................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 1999 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

8 .............. Fleet Turnover Correction (FTC) for 1999 .................................... Row 2 minus Row 7. 

9 .............. Required ROP VOC Reduction for 1999 ...................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 7. 

11 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 2002 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2002 by 

Tier 0 FM VCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

12 ............ FTC for 2002 ................................................................................. Row 7 minus Row 11. 

13 ............ Required ROP Reduction for 2002 ............................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 11. 

14 ............ 2002 VOC Target Level ................................................................ Row 1 minus Rows 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13. 

15 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory for 2005 ...................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2005 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

16 ............ FTC for 2005 ................................................................................. Row 15 minus Row 11.

17 ............ Required ROP VOC Reduction for 2005 ...................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Row 15. 

18 ............ 2005 VOC Target Level ................................................................ Row 14 minus Rows 16 and 17.

TABLE 7B.—GENERAL PROCESS FOR COMPUTING 2002 AND 2005 TOP NOX TARGET LEVELS

Row Description How computed 

1 .............. 1990 NOX ROP Inventory ............................................................. 1990 base year inventory less biogenic emissions and sources 

outside the nonattainment area. 

7 .............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year NOX Inventory for 1999 ...................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 1999 by 

Tier 0 FMCVP/Phase 2 RVP. 

8 .............. Fleet Turnover Correction (FTC) for 1999 .................................... Row 1 minus Row 7. 

9 .............. Required ROP NOX Reduction for 1999 ....................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.09) times Tow 7. 

2092 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 7B.—GENERAL PROCESS FOR COMPUTING 2002 AND 2005 TOP NOX TARGET LEVELS—Continued

Row Description How computed 

11 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year NOX Inventory for 2002 ...................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2002 by 

Tier 0 FMCVP/Phase 2 RVP. 

12 ............ FTC for 2002 ................................................................................. Row 7 minus Row 11. 

13 ............ Required ROP Reduction for 2002 ............................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.9) times Tow 11. 

14 ............ 2002 NOX Target Level ................................................................. Row 1 minus Rows 8, 9, 12 and 13. 

15 ............ Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 2005 ............................... 1990 ROP inventory less emissions eliminated through 2005 by 

Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP. 

16 ............ FTC for 2005 ................................................................................. Row 15 minus Tow 11.

17 ............ Required ROP NOX Reduction for 2005 ....................................... ROP Percentage (0.0 to 0.9) times Row 15. 

18 ............ 2005 NOX Target Level ................................................................. Row 14 minus Rows 16 and 17. 

2. How Were the 3 Percent per Year 

Reductions for the Post 1999–2005 ROP 

Plan Calculated?

TABLE 8.—2002 AND 2005 ROP TARGET LEVELS

Row Description 

VOC

tons/

day 

NOX

tons/

day 

1 ............. 1990 VOC ROP Inventory .......................................................................................................................................... 578.7 869.3 

2 ............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory for 1996 ................................................................................................... 455.5 N/R *

3 ............. VOC Emissions eliminated through 1996 by Tier 0 FMVCP/Phase 2 RVP Programs ............................................. 123.2 N/R 

4 ............. VOC Reductions from RACT Rule Corrections .......................................................................................................... 0.1 N/A*

5 ............. Required 15 Percent VOC Reduction ........................................................................................................................ 68.3 N/R 

7 ............. Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 1999 ............................................................................................................ 433.7 778.5 

8 ............. Fleet Turnover Correction (FTC) for 1999 .................................................................................................................. 21.8 90.8 

9 ............. Required ROP Reduction for 1999—1% VOC & 8% NOX ........................................................................................ 4.3 62.3 

11 ........... Adjusted 1990 Base Year Inventory for 2002 ............................................................................................................ 420.5 756.7 

12 ........... FTC for 2002 ............................................................................................................................................................... 13.2 21.8 

13 ........... Required ROP Reduction for 2002—0 % VOC and 9 % NOX .................................................................................. 0.0 68.1 

14 ........... 2002 Target Level ....................................................................................................................................................... 347.7 626.3 

15 ........... Adjusted 1990 Base Year VOC Inventory for 2005 ................................................................................................... 412.1 735.6 

16 ........... FTC for 2005 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8.4 21.1 

17 ........... Required ROP VOC Reduction for 2005—0% VOC & 9 % NOX .............................................................................. 0.0 66.2 

18 ........... 2005 Target Level ....................................................................................................................................................... 339.3 539.0 

* N/R means not required, and N/A means not applicable. 

3. What Control Strategies Are the 

District, Maryland and Virginia 

Including in the Post 1999–2005 ROP 

Plan? 

The post 1999–2005 ROP plan 

describes the emission reduction credits 

that the Washington area jurisdictions 

are claiming toward their 9 percent 

reduction requirements. We can credit 

reductions for the ROP requirement for 

rules promulgated by the EPA and for 

state measures we have approved as SIP 

revisions. The control measures used in 

the post 1999–2005 ROP plan for the 

Washington area are listed in Tables 9 

and 10 of this document and described 

in more detail in the TSD for this 

rulemaking. The control measures 

include all those in the post 1996–1999 

portion of the plan, plus additional 

measures. Table 9 lists those measures 

credited in the 1996–1999 ROP that 

continue to produce benefits in the post1999 period. There are several reasons 

why a post 1996–1999 measure can also 

be credited in the post-1999 period. 

First, the uncontrolled baseline is 

computed from the1990 levels, not the 

1999 levels. Thus, if a source category 

emits at a rate of one ton of pollutant 

per 10 units of activity (e.g., VMT or 

millions of British Thermal Units heat 

input) and had a 1990 activity level of 

100 units, the source would have 

baseline emissions of 10 tons. If the 

source categories activity level was 

projected to grow to 130 units by 1999 

and 140 units by 2002, the projected 

uncontrolled emissions would be 13 

tons in 1999 and 14 tons in 2002. If this 

source category was controlled at a 50 

percent control, that is, required to emit 

at a rate of a half ton per unit of activity 

by some date before 1999, then the 

projected, controlled emissions would 

be 6.5 tons in 1999 and 7 tons in 2002. 

The reductions would be the projected 

uncontrolled emissions minus the 

controlled emissions. The reductions 

would be 6.5 tons for 1999 and 7 tons 

for 2002. 

Another way a measure included in 

the post 1996–1999 ROP plan can 

produce additional emission reduction 

benefits after 1999 is when increasing 

portions of the source category are 

subject to more stringent standards over 

time. This is true of mobile source 

controls under the FMVCP and NLEV 

programs and for EPA’s nonroad mobile 

source standards. As time passes, more 

and more of the source category is made 

of newer vehicles or engines that were 

manufactured to meet the most recent 

emission standards. For instance, in the 

case of on-road mobile sources, the 

emission factor computed using the 

MOBILE emission factor model declines 

for future years. Once again, reductions 

are computed by subtracting a future 

controlled projected emissions from 

uncontrolled emissions. The future year 

uncontrolled emissions assume only the 

FMVCP in place as of 1990 (termed 

‘‘Tier 0 FMVCP’’), the ‘‘Phase 2 RVP’’

standards issued mandated for 1992, 

and other programs in place in 1990.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2093

9The MOBILE model automatically keeps track of 

when which program is required and thus does not 

compute any credit for Tier 2 for the 2002 year but will for a 2005 year which is after the 2004 model 

year.

The future year controlled programs 

include all the creditable programs 

issued or adopted since 1990 such as 

the Tier 1 and 2 FMVCP standards,9

federal heavy duty on-road diesel 

engine standards, reformulated gasoline, 

the enhanced inspection maintenance 

programs, and the National Low 

Emission Vehicle program. Because the 

same future year VMT is used for both 

the projected uncontrolled and 

controlled cases, the reductions are net 

of growth in VMT.

TABLE 9.—VOC AND NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT IN THE POST 1999–2005 ROP PLAN FROM

MEASURES IN THE 1996–1999 ROP PLAN FOR THE WASHINGTON AREA

[Tons/day] 

Measure 

2002 reductions 2005 reductions 

VOC NOX VOC NOX

Tiers 1 & 2 FMVCP, Reformulated Gasoline (On-road), Federal Heavy Duty Diesel Engines 

rule, NLEV & Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance ................................................................ 56.0 44.9 80.5 85.8 

Reformulated Gasoline (Nonroad/Off-road) .................................................................................... 2.7 ................ 2.9 

Surface Cleaning/Decreasing .......................................................................................................... 4.1 ................ 4.4 

Autobody Refinishing ....................................................................................................................... 9.3 ................ 9.8 

AIM ................................................................................................................................................... 16.7 ................ 17.5 

Consumer Products ......................................................................................................................... 4.1 ................ 4.3 

Seasonal Open Burning Ban ........................................................................................................... 7.4 1.6 7.4 1.6 

Graphic Arts ..................................................................................................................................... 3.8 ................ 4.0 

Landfill Regulations ......................................................................................................................... 2.4 ................ 2.5 

Non-CTG RACT to 50 TPD—MD/VA/DC ........................................................................................ 1.5 ................ 1.5 

Stage I Enhancement ...................................................................................................................... 1.5 ................ 1.6 

Expanded State Point Source Regulation to 25 TPD ..................................................................... 2.4 ................ 2.5 

Stage II Vapor Recovery Nozzles ................................................................................................... 15.1 ................ 15.1 

RFG refueling benefits ..................................................................................................................... 2.6 ................ 2.3 

Non-road Gasoline Engines Rule .................................................................................................... 22.2 ................ 26.6 

Non-road Diesel Engines ................................................................................................................. ................ 14.9 ................ 22.1 

State NOX RACT/beyond RACT ..................................................................................................... ................ 203.8 ................ 279.4 

Total Creditable Reductions ..................................................................................................... 151.8 265.2 182.9 388.9 

The post 1999–2005 ROP plan for the 

Washington area also includes 

additional emission reduction measures 

beyond those included in the post 

1996–1999 ROP plan. All the States 

have adopted limits on certain 

architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings that are 

more stringent than the limits required 

under the Federal regulations for AIM 

coatings. The post 1999–2005 ROP plan 

also includes Virginia’s rule for solvent 

cleaning operations which is based on 

the Federal maximum achievable 

control technology (MACT) standard for 

chlorinated solvent vapor degreasers. 

The States each have issued rules that 

regulate VOC emissions from portable 

fuel containers by setting standards for 

the design and construction of these 

containers. 

The post 1999–2005 ROP plan also 

relies upon VOC emission reductions 

from emissions standards promulgated 

by EPA for several categories of nonroad 

mobile sources. These categories are: 

(a) Spark ignition outboard, personal 

water craft and jetboat engines (OB/

PWC) and stern drive and inboard 

engines; 

(b) Large spark-ignition engines such 

as those used in forklifts and airport 

ground-service equipment; 

(c) Recreational vehicles using sparkignition engines such as off-highway 

motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, and 

snowmobiles; and 

(d) Recreational marine diesel 

engines. 

The 1999–2005 ROP plan also relies 

upon additional TCMs which are 

strategies to both reduce VMT and 

decrease the amount of emissions per 

VMT, and are considered an essential 

element of control strategies for 

nonattainment areas. 

The post 1999–2005 ROP plan also 

relies upon certain voluntary nonregulatory measures as an alternative to 

traditional ‘‘command and control’’

regulatory approaches. Voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

have the potential to encourage new, 

untried and cost-effective approaches to 

reduce emissions. Under EPA’s 

guidance, voluntary emission reduction 

program measures can be approved if 

the State retains enforceable 

responsibility for the amount of 

emission reductions associated with the 

voluntary measures and meets certain 

other obligations. 

The post 1999–2005 ROP plan’s 

control measures for the Washington 

area are listed in Table 10 of this 

document and described in more detail 

in the TSD for this rulemaking.

2094 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10.—VOC AND NOX EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MEASURES IN THE 1999–2005 ROP PLAN FOR THE

WASHINGTON AREA

[Tons/day] 

Line # Measure 

2002 Reductions 2005 Reductions 

VOC NOX VOC NOX

1 ............. Measures in 1996–1999 ROP plan (from Table 9) .................................................... 151.8 265.2 182.9 388.9 

2 ............. State Portable Fuel Container Rules—MD/VA ........................................................... 0.9 ................ 2.4 

3 ............. State Solvent Cleaning Rules ..................................................................................... ................ ................ 9.0 

4 ............. EPA’s Non-road Engines and vehicles rule—Large Spark Ignition Engine Rule ....... ................ 0.6 ................ 0.5 

5 ............. EPA’s Non-road Engines and vehicles rule—Spark Ignition Marine Engines ............ 1.3 ................ 3.1 

6 ............. TCMs in 2004 SIP Revisions ...................................................................................... 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 

7 ............. State AIM Rules .......................................................................................................... ................ ................ 12.3 

8 ............. Voluntary Measures .................................................................................................... ................ ................ 3.19 .19 

9 ............. State Portable Fuel Container Rules—DC ................................................................. ................ ................ 0.2 

Total Reductions ................................................................................................................... 154.3 266.3 213.39 390.29 

4. What Are the Creditable Reductions 

in the Post 1999–2005 ROP Plan? 

EPA can only credit reductions in a 

ROP plan required by section 182(c)(2) 

if those reductions meet the creditability 

requirements of sections 182(b)(1)(C) 

and (D) of the Act. One restriction for 

creditability is that the reduction has to 

result from a rule promulgated by EPA, 

from a permit issued pursuant to Title 

V of the Act, or from a rule that EPA has 

approved into the applicable SIP(s) (See

302(q) of the Act). 

All of the reductions from national 

rules (all those in Table 9 as well as 

those listed on lines 4 and 5 of Table 10) 

for which the States seek credit in their 

post 1996–1999 and post 1999-2005 

ROP plans have been promulgated by 

EPA. All of the reductions from State 

rules included in Table 9 and in lines 

2 and 3 of Table 10 for which the States 

seek credit in their post 1996–1999 and 

post 1999–2005 ROP plans have been 

approved into the applicable SIP. 

As for the rest of the State measures, 

EPA can only credit the ROP plan with 

reductions from a measure approved 

into the applicable SIP, and, hence, can 

only issue a final rule approving the 

ROP plan after or concurrently with our 

approval of state measures projected to 

generate sufficient reductions to 

demonstrate ROP. However, EPA can 

propose approval of an ROP plan if we 

have proposed approval of enough 

measures to generate the reductions 

needed to demonstrate ROP. EPA has 

already proposed approval for all the 

measures listed in Table 10. The TCMs 

in the 1996–1999 ROP plan and the 

2004 SIP revisions are being proposed 

for approval in this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. The status of each of the 

remaining items is as follows: 

EPA proposed approval of the 

Maryland and Virginia State AIM rules 

on May 25, 2004 (69 FR 29674) and June 

7, 2004 (69 FR 31780), respectively. For 

the measures listed in Table 11, a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPR) has been 

published in the Federal Register.

TABLE 11.—NPR SIGNATURE DATES

Measure Line number in 

table 9 Date/Citation of NPR 

State AIM Rule—DC ........................................................................................................................... 7 12/27/04 (69 FR 77149). 

Voluntary Measures ............................................................................................................................ 8 12/23/04 (69 FR 76889). 

State Portable Fuel Container Rules—DC ......................................................................................... 9 12/29/04 (69 FR 77970). 

5. How Does the Post 1999–2005 ROP 

Plan Demonstrate ROP? 

The post 1999–2005 plan 

demonstrates that the Washington area 

meets the post 1999–2005 ROP 

requirement of the Act by showing that 

the ROP plan will generate sufficient 

emission reductions to reduce the 

projected uncontrolled 2002 or 2005 

emissions to less than or equal to a 

target level of emissions for that year 

which represents a 9 percent reduction 

in baseline emissions. The 2002 and 

2005 NOX target levels are 626.3 and 

539.0 tons/day of NOX, respectively. 

(See Table 8 of this document.) These 

target levels each represent a 9 percent 

reduction in baseline NOX emissions.

The 2002 and 2005 uncontrolled NOX

emissions are 880.1 and 880.8 tons/day, 

respectively. Thus, the required NOX

reductions for 2002 are 880.1 minus the 

target level of 626.3, that is, 253.8 tons/

day of NOX emissions. The required 

NOX reductions for 2005 are 880.8 

minus the target level of 539.0, that is, 

341.8 tons/day of NOX emissions. The 

measures listed in Table 9 achieve 

sufficient reductions to enable the area 

to achieve the 2002 and 2005 NOX target 

levels. As discussed in section IV. E. of 

this document, these measures are fully 

creditable towards ROP. 

While not a factor in our evaluation 

for approval, EPA notes that the post 

1999–2005 ROP plan also demonstrates 

reasonable further progress for VOC 

emissions for 2002 and 2005 in a more 

generic manner pursuant to section 

172(c)(2) of the Act. This is evidenced 

by the numerous VOC reduction 

measures in the plan. With the 

exception of the voluntary measures 

(the approval of which has been 

proposed in a separate proposed 

rulemaking) and the TCMs (the approval 

of which is also proposed in this 

document), the bulk of these measures 

are part of the measures identified in the 

contingency plan to address the failure 

to attain by November 15, 1999. As will 

be discussed in succeeding sections of 

this document, the approval of the 

contingency measure plan and the ROP 

demonstration required by section 

182(c)(2) is contingent upon approval of 

these measures. The attainment 

demonstration relies on VOC as well as 

NOX emission reductions in both the 

photochemical modeling and weight of

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2095

10See Memorandum dated August 13, 1993, From 

G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide 

Programs Branch, to Air Branch Chief, Regions I–

X, entitled ‘‘Early Implementation of Contingency 

Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Nonattainment Areas.’’

evidence portions of the demonstration. 

Therefore, reductions in VOC emissions 

constitute progress towards attainment. 

However, EPA believes that the average 

3 percent per year ROP requirement of 

section 182(c)(2) has been demonstrated 

by NOX reductions alone. 

EPA has approved ROP plans under 

section 182(c)(2) that relied solely upon 

NOX reductions without regard to VOC 

reductions. See 69 FR 42880, July 19, 

2004 (proposed at 69 FR 25348, May 6, 

2004) and 64 FR 13348, March 18, 1999 

(proposed by 63 FR 45172, August 25, 

1998). 

EPA concludes that the post 1999–

2005 ROP plan in the 2004 SIP revisions 

does demonstrate ROP of at least a nine 

(9) percent reduction in NOX baseline 

emissions in the Washington area for 

each of the 1999–2002 and 2002–2005 

periods. Therefore, EPA believes that we 

can approve the post 1999–2005 ROP 

plans submitted by the States for the 

Washington area on the basis of the NOX

reductions alone. 

F. Do the Post 1996–1999 and Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans for the 

Washington Area Meet the 

Requirements for NOX Substitution? 

1. Relationship to the Attainment 

Demonstration 

In order to determine whether the 

post 1996–1999 and post 1999–2005 

ROP plans satisfy EPA’s guidance and 

the Act regarding NOX substitution, we 

had to examine and evaluate certain 

aspects of the attainment demonstration 

plan that the States have also submitted 

for the Washington area. For purposes of 

proposing approval of the post 1996–

1999 and post 1999–2005 ROP plans, 

EPA’s review of the attainment 

demonstration was limited to whether 

the photochemical grid modeling 

showed that NOX reductions are useful 

in reducing ozone concentrations, that 

the ROP plan substitutes no more NOX

reductions than assumed in the 

attainment demonstration, and whether 

the attainment demonstration attained 

within time periods mandated by the 

Act. EPA also examined the attainment 

demonstration to ensure that the 

attainment demonstration did not rely 

upon the measures identified in the 

contingency plan in the event the 

Washington area fails to attain by 

November 15, 2005 or fails to achieve 

post 1996 ROP or a post 1996 ROP 

milestone. As discussed in Section V. of 

this document, the continency plan 

relies upon early implementation of 

contingency measures. EPA had to 

ensure that the attainment 

demonstration did not rely upon these 

measures in order to propose approval 

of the contingency plan for failure to 

attain by November 15, 2005. The 

attainment demonstration SIPs 

submitted by the States for the 

Washington area are the subject of a 

separate rulemaking that does address 

all of the required elements. 

EPA concludes that the 2004 SIP 

revisions demonstrate that the relative 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

from the entire inventory is greater than 

that used in the photochemical grid 

modeling for the Washington area and 

that the weight of evidence shows that 

the measures creditable towards the 

2005 milestone year will result in 

attainment by no later than November 

15, 2005. Furthermore, we have 

determined that this demonstration does 

not depend upon any measures in the 

contingency measure plan, and that the 

States have used the latest planning 

assumptions for emissions estimates for 

all source categories. EPA also 

concludes that the attainment 

demonstration modeling shows that 

NOX reductions are beneficial towards 

reducing ozone in the Washington area 

and that with all the measures in the 

ROP plan the Washington area will 

attain by November 15, 2005. EPA 

further finds that the post 1996–1999 

and post 1999–2005 ROP plans 

substitute fewer NOX reductions than 

those needed for attainment by 

November 15, 2005. EPA, therefore, 

concludes that the post 1996–1999 and 

post 1999–2005 ROP plans for the 

Washington area meet EPA’s guidance 

and the Act for NOX substitution, and 

can be approved. A detailed description 

of our analysis of the local modeling 

and weight of evidence and its 

relationship to NOX substitution is 

provided in the TSD prepared in 

support of this rulemaking action. That 

TSD also includes our detailed 

evaluation of how the post 1996–1999 

and post 1999–2005 ROP plans satisfy 

the Act’s and our guidance for NOX

substitution. A copy of the TSD is 

available in the E-Docket for this 

rulemaking and upon request from the 

EPA Regional Office listed in the 

Addresses section of this document.

V. Contingency Measure Plan 

Sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) of the 

Act require that SIPs contain additional 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the state 

or EPA if an area fails to attain the 

standard by the applicable date, or fails 

to meet ROP deadlines. The Act does 

not specify how many contingency 

measures are needed or the magnitude 

of emissions reductions that must be 

provided by these measures. However, 

EPA provided our initial guidance 

interpreting the contingency measure 

requirements of 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

in the April 16, 1992, General Preamble 

for Implementation of the Act (See 57 

FR 13498 at 13510, April 16, 1992). Our 

interpretation is based upon the 

language in sections 1872(c)(9) and 

1829(c)(9) in conjunction with the 

control measures requirements of 

sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), 

the reclassification and failure to attain 

provisions of section 181(b) and other 

provisions. In the April 16, 1992 initial 

guidance EPA indicated that states with 

moderate and above ozone 

nonattainment areas should include 

sufficient contingency measures so that, 

upon implementation of such measures, 

additional emission reductions of up to 

3 percent of the emissions in the 

adjusted base year inventory (or such 

lesser percentage that will cure the 

identified failure) would be achieved in 

the year following the year in which the 

failure has been identified. The State 

must show that the contingency 

measures can be implemented with 

minimal further action on their part and 

with no additional rulemaking actions. 

In subsequent guidance, EPA opined 

that contingency measures could be 

implemented early, that is, be 

implemented prior to the milestone or 

attainment date.10

A. What Are the Contingency Measures 

Implemented To Address the Failure To 

Attain by November 15, 1999 and for 

the 1996–1999 ROP Plan? 

The 2004 SIP revisions identify two 

groups of measures that have been 

implemented since November 15, 1999. 

The first of these measures is phase 2 of 

the RFG program. By opting into the 

reformulated gasoline program, the 

States ensured that the further benefits 

of the program would be implemented 

on January 1, 2000. Such 

implementation would be earlier than 

what would have occurred had RFG 

been implemented in the area due to 

reclassification. Under section 181 of 

the Act, EPA has no enforceable duty to 

reclassify an area sooner than 6 months 

after the attainment date. 

EPA bases the determination of failure 

to attain upon air quality monitoring 

data and thus must have ozone season 

data for the attainment year in hand. 

States are required to report air quality 

data at least quarterly and each report is 

due no later than 90 days after the end 

of the quarterly reporting period (40

2096 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

CFR 58.35). Thus the earliest EPA 

would be assured to have data for the 

first portion (April–June) of the 

Washington Area’s April to October 

ozone season would have been 

September 1999. Under section 211(k) 

of the Act, the RFG program becomes 

effective in an area one year after the 

effective date of the reclassification to 

severe. At the earliest, the RFG program 

would have been required in the fall of 

2000, and at the latest spring of 2001. By 

opting into the RFG program, the 

Washington Area States assured that the 

additional benefits of the second phase 

of the RFP program would be 

implemented without any further action 

by the States or EPA on January 1, 2000. 

EPA believes it is illogical to penalize 

nonattainment areas that are taking 

extra steps, such as implementing 

contingency measures prior to a 

deadline, to comport with the CAA’s 

mandate that such states achieve 

NAAQS compliance as ‘‘expeditiously 

as practicable.’’ EPA has applied this 

guideline to situations where the 

reductions occurred prior to the 

attainment deadline. See, e.g., 67 FR 

61786, October 2, 2002. 

The second phase of the RFG program 

was implemented prior to EPA’s January 

24, 2003 rule which determined that the 

Washington area failed to attain the 1-

hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 

1999 and which reclassified it to severe 

nonattainment. EPA believes, however, 

the fact that the measure was 

implemented prior to the effective date 

of the reclassification should not render 

it ineligible for use as a contingency 

measure. After all, if a measure 

implemented prior to the attainment 

date can count towards the failure-toattain contingency requirement, then 

surely this measure, which was 

implemented shortly after the 

attainment deadline, can count towards 

the failure-to-attain by November 15, 

1999 contingency requirement.

The second group of measures are 

additional measures implemented after 

November 15, 1999, but before 

November 15, 2005. These additional 

measures are the States AIM coatings, 

portable fuel container (PFC) and 

solvent cleaning rules discussed in 

Section IV. E. of this document. A 

summary of the expected benefits from 

these measures is presented in Table 12.

TABLE 12.—CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Measure 

VOC

reductions

(tons/day) 

Implementation date 

Solvent Cleaning Operations—VA ................................................................................................. 9.0 January 1, 2005. 

Portable fuel containers rule—MD ................................................................................................. 1.7 January 1, 2004. 

Portable fuel containers rule—VA .................................................................................................. 0.7 January 1, 2005. 

AIM coatings rule—DC ................................................................................................................... 1.1 January 1, 2005. 

AIM coatings rule—MD .................................................................................................................. 6.2 January 1, 2005. 

AIM coatings rule—VA ................................................................................................................... 5.0 January 1, 2005. 

Total ........................................................................................................................................ 23.7 

3 percent of 1999 baseline emissions ........................................................................................... 13.0 3 percent of 433.7 TPD VOC. 

While these additional measures were 

not adopted as contingency measures 

before the Washington area was 

reclassified to severe nonattainment (or 

before November 15, 1999) and then 

implemented to take effect without any 

further action by the States or EPA after 

the area failed to attain, EPA believes 

that the adoption of these additional 

measures also fulfill the contingency 

measure requirement for a serious area. 

The SIPs applicable to the Washington 

area did not identify contingency 

measures prior to the reclassification, 

and, the ultimate remedy for such a 

defect would be to implement 

additional measures over and above 

those in the applicable SIP. These 

measures were adopted and made 

enforceable after the March 1, 2003 

effective date that of EPA final rule 

reclassifying the Washington area to 

severe nonattainment for failing to 

attain the ozone NAAQS. (See, 68 FR 

3410, January 24, 2003.) The adopted 

rules implementing the measures 

require compliance before the severe 

area attainment date of November 15, 

2005. 

In the General Preamble (57 FR 13498 

at 13510, April 16, 1992), we stated that 

the contingency measure would need to 

achieve reductions in the year following 

the year in which the failure has been 

identified. In the January 24, 2003 final 

rule, EPA issued the determination that 

the Washington area had failed to attain 

by November 15, 1999. Thus, under the 

guidance in the General Preamble the 

measures should have been 

implemented no later than one year 

from March 1, 2003, the effective date 

of the January 24, 2003 final rule. 

However, the States have adopted the 

additional rules to fulfill the 

contingency measure requirement, these 

measures have been implemented on 

the dates shown in Table 12, and the 

measures have been submitted as SIP 

revisions. EPA believes that it would 

serve no purpose to disapprove the 

contingency measure plan simply 

because the measures were not 

implemented by March 1, 2004, since 

the remedy would require yet another 

rule adoption process which cannot 

cure the problem of having missed a 

deadline that is nearly two years in the 

past. 

As discussed in Section IV. E. of this 

document, EPA has not yet approved all 

these contingency measures. The States 

have calculated the amount of VOC or 

NOX reductions that are required to 

meet the 3 percent contingency 

requirement relative to the 1999 

adjusted base year inventory. The 

amount of VOC reduction needed is 

13.0 tons per day (433.7 x 0.03). EPA 

has already approved the first three 

measures listed in Table 12 into the 

Maryland or Virginia SIP. The 

reductions from these three measures 

total 11.4 of the needed 13 tons per day. 

However, we can propose approval of 

the contingency plan if EPA has 

proposed approval of the measures in 

that plan. As indicated in Section IV. E. 

of this document, EPA has already 

proposed approval of all these 

measures. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

contingency plan as containing adopted 

and implemented measures to address 

the Washington area’s failure to attain 

by November 15, 1999 and for the 1996–

1999 ROP plan. Any final action to 

approve the contingency plan can only 

occur concurrently with or after 

approval of all the measures as SIP 

revisions.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2097

B. What Measures Are in the 

Contingency Measures Plan for the Post 

1999–2005 ROP Plans and for Failure 

To Attain by November 15, 2005? 

1. Measures in the Plan 

The States have identified a number 

of fully adopted measures which can be 

implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions to fill the 

contingency plan in the event the 

Washington area has a failure to make 

ROP or fails to attain by November 15, 

2005. These measures include: 

(a) The District’s rule for solvent 

cleaning operations rules which are 

based on the Federal maximum 

achievable control technology (MACT) 

standard for chlorinated solvent vapor 

degreasers and thus require higher 

levels of technology than required 

previous District requirements; 

(b) The District’s and Maryland’s rules 

for consumer products that set more 

stringent limits than the otherwise 

applicable Federal rules; 

(c) The District’s and Virginia’s rules 

covering refinishing operations of motor 

vehicles. These rules set more stringent 

VOC control standards for these 

operations than otherwise applicable 

Federal regulations. The main difference 

in the state rules versus the federal rule 

is that the federal rule regulates only the 

VOC content of the repair coatings 

whereas the state rules also require the 

use of high transfer-efficiency painting 

methods (e.g., high volume low pressure 

spray guns), and controls on emissions 

from equipment (e.g., spray gun) 

cleaning, housekeeping activities (e.g., 

use of sealed containers for clean-up 

rags), and operator training; and 

(d) Post 2005 reductions from the 

portable fuel containers rules in all 

three States. The reductions from 

Virginia’s, Maryland’s and the District’s 

rules are credited towards the ROP and 

attainment plans only to the extent the 

measure produces benefits by January 1, 

2005 and November 15, 2005. The 

measure will accrue additional benefits 

after November 15, 2005 as additional 

old containers are replaced by ones 

meeting the new requirements. These 

additional benefits are credited towards 

the contingency plan. 

2. Early Implementation Schedule 

The measures in the contingency 

measure plan will be implemented upon 

a fixed schedule whether or not EPA 

issued a finding of failure that the 

Washington area failed achieve a post 

1999 ROP milestone or fails to attain by 

November 15, 2005. All of the rules 

except Maryland’s portable fuel 

containers regulation will take effect 

January 1, 2005. Maryland’s portable 

fuel containers regulation took effect 

January 1, 2003. Thus, all of the rules 

can be implemented without further 

action by the State or EPA.

In guidance issued in 1993, we allow 

the use of surplus reductions that have 

already been achieved before the failure 

has been identified to serve as 

contingency measures in the year after 

the failure for attainment and ROP 

plans. If an area then fails to meet a 

milestone which triggers the 

implementation of contingency 

measures, the state would have one year 

to backfill the contingency measure. 

(See 57 FR 13498, 13511, April 16, 

1992). 

The States have not used the VOC 

reductions on which the contingency 

measure plan relies in either the 

attainment demonstration or post 1996–

1999 and post 1999–2005 ROP plans. 

The attainment demonstration relies 

upon a total of over 210 TPD reduction 

in VOC emissions. Given that the 

contingency measures are about 6 

percent of the total number of 

reductions and given that the 

implementation date of January 1, 2005, 

EPA believes that these contingency 

measures are not reasonably available 

control measures (RACM) because they 

would not advance the attainment date 

from the 2005 ozone season to the 2004 

ozone season. Therefore, the early 

implemented contingency measures are 

surplus to the attainment 

demonstration. A summary of the 

expected benefits from these measures 

is presented in Table 13.

TABLE 13.—CONTINGENCY MEASURES

Measure 

VOC

Reductions

(tons/day) 

Implementation date/remark 

Solvent Cleaning Operations—DC ................................................................................................. 2.7 January 1, 2005. 

Motor Vehicle Refinishing—DC ...................................................................................................... 0.6 January 1, 2005. 

Motor Vehicle Refinishing—VA ...................................................................................................... 2.0 January 1, 2005. 

Consumer Products—MD .............................................................................................................. 2.9 January 1, 2005. 

Consumer Products—DC ............................................................................................................... 1.1 January 1, 2005. 

Portable fuel containers rule—DC ................................................................................................. 0.3 Post 2005 benefits only.

Portable fuel containers rule—MD ................................................................................................. 1.5 Post 2005 benefits only.

Portable fuel containers rule—VA .................................................................................................. 1.7 Post 2005 benefits only. 

Total ................................................................................................................................. 12.8 

3 percent of 2002 baseline emissions ........................................................................................... 12.6 3 percent of 420.5 TPD VOC 

3. Approval Status 

EPA can only approve the 

contingency plan after or concurrently 

with EPA’s approval of any State 

contingency measures rules into the 

applicable SIP. However, we can 

propose approval of the contingency 

measure plan once EPA has proposed 

approval of the state contingency 

measures into the applicable SIP. 

EPA has already published final or 

proposed rules in the Federal Register

to approve all of the measures in the 

contingency plan for the Washington 

area. The status of each measure in the 

contingency plan is briefly described in 

the following table.

TABLE 14.—CONTINGENCY MEASURE APPROVAL STATUS

Measures Approved into SIPs: 

Consumer Products—MD ................................................................. Approved—12/09/03, 68 FR 68523. 

State Portable Fuel Containers—VA ................................................ Approved—07/08/04, 69 FR 31893. 

2098 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 14.—CONTINGENCY MEASURE APPROVAL STATUS—Continued

State Portable Fuel Containers—MD ................................................ Approved—06/29/04, 69 FR 38848. 

Motor Vehicle Refinishing—VA ......................................................... Approved—06/24/04, 69 FR 35253. 

Measures Proposed for Approval into SIPs: 

Motor Vehicle Refinishing—DC ......................................................... 12/23/04, 69 FR 77688. 

Solvent Cleaning—DC ...................................................................... 12/29/04, 69 FR 77971. 

Consumer Products—DC .................................................................. 12/28/04, 69 FR 77688. 

State Portable Fuel Container Rules—DC ....................................... 12/29/04, 69 FR 77970. 

4. Conclusion 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

contingency plan as containing adopted 

and implemented measures to address 

the contingency measure requirements 

in the event the Washington area fails to 

attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by 

November 15, 2005 and for any future 

failures to achieve ROP or a ROP 

milestone. Any final approval is 

contingent upon approval of sufficient 

State measures to achieve the 3 percent 

of baseline emission requirement. To 

have sufficient measures to achieve the 

3 percent of baseline emission 

requirement, EPA will have promulgate 

final rules approving all of the measures 

listed in Tables 12 and 13.

VI. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) 

Offset SIP and Transportation Control 

Measures (TCMs) 

A. What Is a VMT Offset SIP? 

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act 

requires states containing ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as severe, 

pursuant to section 181(a) of the Act, to 

adopt transportation control strategies 

and TCMs to offset increases in 

emissions resulting from growth in VMT 

or numbers of vehicle trips and to 

obtain reductions in motor vehicle 

emissions as necessary (in combination 

with other emission reduction 

requirements) to comply with the Act’s 

ROP milestones and attainment 

demonstration requirements. Our 

interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A) is 

discussed in the April 16, 1992, General 

Preamble (57 FR 13498). Section 

182(d)(1)(A) of the Act specifies 

submission of the VMT Offset SIP by 

November 15, 1992, for any severe and 

above ozone nonattainment area. 

However, EPA has concluded that 

section 182(i) of the Act authorizes EPA 

to adjust applicable deadlines (other 

than attainment dates) to the extent 

such adjustment is necessary or 

appropriate to assure consistency among 

the required submissions of new 

requirements applicable to an area 

which has been reclassified. In the final 

rule reclassifying the Washington area 

to severe nonattainment, EPA 

established the submission deadline of 

March 1, 2004 for the section 182(d)(1) 

SIP revision as EPA set for all the other 

new SIP revision elements applicable to 

reclassified area. See 68 FR 3410 at 

3422, January 24, 2004. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of VMT Offset SIP in 

the 2004 SIP Revisions 

In the ‘‘General Preamble’’ EPA 

explained how States are to demonstrate 

that the VMT requirement is satisfied. 

Sufficient measures must be adopted so 

projected motor vehicle VOC emissions 

will stay beneath a ‘‘ceiling level’’

established through modeling of 

mandated transportation-related 

controls. When growth in VMT and 

vehicle trips would otherwise cause a 

motor vehicle emissions upturn, this 

upturn must be prevented, or offset, by 

TCMs. If projected total motor vehicle 

emissions during the ozone season in 

one year are not higher than during the 

previous ozone season due to the 

control measures in the SIP, the VMT 

Offset requirement is satisfied. In order 

to make these projections, a curve of 

vehicle emissions is modeled to 

represent the effects of required 

reductions from the following 

mandatory programs: an enhanced 

performance standard vehicle I/M 

program, Phase 2 RVP, RFG, and the 

FMVCP. (See 57 FR 13498 at 13521–

13523, April 16, 1992.) As described in 

the General Preamble, the purpose of 

section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act is to 

prevent growth in motor vehicle 

emissions from negating the emissions 

reduction benefits of the federally 

mandated programs in the Act. EPA 

believes it is appropriate to interpret the 

VMT Offset SIP provisions of the Act to 

account for how States can practicably 

comply with each of the provision’s 

elements. 

A detailed description of the States’

VMT offset SIPs for the Washington area 

and our evaluation of how those SIPs 

satisfy the applicable requirements of 

the Act and EPA’s guidance is provided 

in the TSD prepared in support of this 

rulemaking. That TSD is available in the 

E-Docket of this rulemaking and from 

the EPA Regional Office listed in 

Addresses section of this document. 

The States’ plans show, and EPA’s 

evaluation confirms, that the modeled 

curve for the Washington area does not 

turn upward (indicating the control 

programs are offsetting increases in 

emission from growth in VMT). 

Therefore, no TCMs would be necessary 

to offset emissions from growth in VMT 

under section 182(d)(1)(A). However, 

the District, Maryland and Virginia have 

chosen to include certain TCMs as 

measures to help meet the ROP and 

attainment requirements.

C. What TCMs Are Part of the SIP? 

Typical TCMs included in the plans 

are bicycle racks on buses and at transit 

stations, park-and-ride lots, additional 

bus shelters, additional bicycle lanes, 

purchase of compressed natural gas 

buses to replace diesel fueled buses, and 

additional/improved side walks to 

encourage walking. The TCMs also 

include outfitting 866 buses with 

continuously regenerating filters and the 

use of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. The 

TCMs are described in more detail in 

Appendix H of the revised plan 

document, entitled, ‘‘Revised State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision, 

Phase I Attainment Plan for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area’’ dated April 16, 1999 (‘‘April 1999 

Post-1996 Plan’’). This plan was 

submitted as a SIP revision on May 25, 

1999, May 20, 1999, and on May 25, 

1999 by the District, Maryland and 

Virginia, respectively. Further TCMs in 

the February 19, 2004 plan, are 

described in section 7.5 and Appendix 

G of that document. The February 19, 

2004 plan was submitted as a SIP 

revision on February 24, 2004 by 

Maryland, and on February 25, 2004 by 

the District and Virginia. 

EPA concludes that the States have 

submitted sufficient TCMs to meet the 

requirement of section 182(d)(1)(A) of 

the Act. EPA is proposing to approve 

the VMT Offset SIP submitted by the 

States on the dates listed in Table 2 of 

this document.

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2099

VII. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEBs) 

A. Background on Transportation 

Conformity 

1. What Is Transportation Conformity? 

Transportation conformity is a CAA 

requirement for metropolitan planning 

organizations and the U.S. Department 

of Transportation to ensure that 

federally supported highway and transit 

activities are consistent with (‘‘conform 

to’’) the SIP. Conformity to a SIP means 

that an action will not cause or 

contribute to new violations; worsen 

existing violations; or delay timely 

attainment. The conformity 

requirements are established by CAA 

section 176(c). We issued the 

transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 

part 93) to implement this CAA 

requirement.

2. What Are Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets? 

As described in the CAA and our 

conformity rule, control strategy SIPs 

such as ROP plans and attainment 

demonstrations, and maintenance plan 

SIPs, must establish and identify 

MVEBs to ensure areas continue to 

demonstrate ROP and reach attainment. 

These MVEBs are ‘‘ceilings’’ for 

emissions from motor vehicles, and are 

used in conformity analyses to 

determine whether transportation plans 

and projects conform to the attainment, 

ROP, and maintenance SIPs. In order for 

transportation plans and projects to 

conform, estimated emissions from 

transportation plans and projects must 

not exceed the applicable MVEBs 

contained in attainment demonstration, 

ROP or maintenance plans. 

3. Which Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Usually Apply? 

According to the transportation 

conformity rule, MVEBs in a submitted 

SIP may apply for conformity purposes 

even before we have approved the SIP, 

under certain circumstances. The 

MVEBs in a submitted SIP cannot be 

used before we have approved the SIP 

or until and unless we have found the 

MVEBs of the submitted SIP adequate 

for conformity purposes. Our process for 

determining adequacy is explained at 40 

CFR 93.118(e) and the EPA’s May 14, 

1999 memo entitled, ‘‘Conformity 

Guidance on Implementation of March 

2, 1999 Conformity Court Decision’’ as 

amended by 69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004. 

(See 61 FR 36117, July 9, 1996; 62 FR 

at 43783–43784, August 15, 1997; and 

69 FR 40004 at 400038, July 1, 2004 for 

more details about the applicability of 

submitted and approved budgets.) 

B. What Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets Currently Apply in the 

Washington Area? 

As stated elsewhere in this document, 

EPA’s approvals of the 1996–1999 ROP 

plan and the earlier versions (those 

submitted during 1998 and 2000) of the 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions 

were vacated by the court. Therefore, 

the MVEBs in these SIP revisions are 

not currently in the approved SIP. EPA 

had issued adequacy findings for the 

MVEBs in the post 1996–1999 ROP plan 

and the earlier versions of the 

attainment demonstration SIP revisions 

(those submitted during 1998 and 2000) 

prior to our January 3, 2001 final 

approval (66 FR 586) of those SIPs. (See

64 FR 43698, August 11, 1999, and 65 

FR 36439, June 8, 2000.) Even though 

EPA issued findings of adequacy on 

these budgets, EPA has always 

interpreted the transportation 

conformity rule such that a final 

rulemaking action approving a control 

strategy or maintenance plan SIP 

renders any prior adequacy 

determination made for budgets related 

to that particular control strategy or 

maintenance plan SIP of no further force 

or effect. Instead, the final rulemaking 

on the SIPs governs which budgets 

apply for conformity purposes. We also 

interpret our transportation conformity 

rule to mean that once a SIP approval 

is vacated the prior adequacy 

determination on the vacated budgets is 

not resurrected. 

Therefore, the only MVEBs in the 

approved SIPs for the Washington area 

are those for VOC in the approved 15% 

ROP plan for 1996. (See 64 FR 42629, 

August 5, 1999; 65 FR 44686, July 19, 

2000; and 65 FR 59727, October 6, 

2000.) However, on December 16, 2003 

(68 FR 70012), EPA made a finding of 

adequacy for the 2005 ROP motor 

vehicle emission budgets in the SIP 

revisions submitted by Virginia, 

Maryland and the District of Columbia 

on August 19, 2003, September 2, 2003, 

and September 5, 2003, respectively (the 

December 16, 2003 finding of 

adequacy). In accordance with the 

transportation conformity rule, once 

found adequate, these 2005 MVEBs 

superseded the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets in the 15 percent ROP plan 

because these 2005 budgets cover a later 

year and are more stringent. (See 40 CFR 

93.118)

C. What Effect Will This Action Have on 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the 

Washington Area? 

This action proposes to approve the 

post 1996–1999 ROP plan for the 

Washington area and its 1999 MVEBs 

into the District of Columbia, Maryland 

and Virginia SIPs. This action also 

proposes to approve the 1999–2005 ROP 

plan and its 2002 and 2005 MVEBs as 

revisions to the District of Columbia, 

Maryland and Virginia SIPs. A 

subsequent final action to approve of 

the 2005 budgets in the 1999–2005 ROP 

plan will supersede the December 16, 

2003 finding of adequacy. 

Likewise, by this proposed 

rulemaking, EPA is also initiating the 

adequacy process under 40 CFR 

93.118(f) for the 2005 budgets in the 

1999–2005 ROP plan submitted by 

Maryland on February 24, 2004 and by 

the District and Virginia on February 25, 

2004. Should EPA make a final 

adequacy finding on these 2005 ROP 

budgets, prior to taking a final action to 

approve them as SIP revisions, that 

adequacy finding would supersede the 

December 16, 2003 adequacy finding, 

and thus make the 2005 budgets in the 

1999–2005 ROP plans submitted by 

Maryland on February 24, 2004 and by 

the District and Virginia on February 25, 

2004 the applicable 2005 ROP budgets. 

D. What Are the NVEBs Identified in the 

ROP Plan for the Washington Area? 

The motor vehicle emissions budgets 

for 1999 in the 1996–1999 ROP plan are 

128.5 tons per day of VOC and 196.4 

tons per day of NOX. The motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in the 1999–2005 

ROP plan are: 

(1) For 2002, 125.2 tons per day for 

VOC and 290.3 tons per day of NOX; 

and 

(2) For 2005, 97.4 tons per day for 

VOC and 234.7 tons per day of NOX. 

VIII. Prerequisites for Approval of the 

Post 1996–1999 and Post 1999–2005 

ROP Plans 

Approval of the ROP plans for the 

Washington area also requires approval 

of the associated contingency plans. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve 

the post 1996–1999 ROP plans, the post 

1999–2005 ROP plans and the 

contingency measures plans submitted 

by the District, Maryland and Virginia 

for the Washington area. Approval of 

the ROP plans requires previous or 

concurrent SIP-approval of all the 

emission reduction measures upon 

which the ROP demonstrations rely. 

Likewise, approval of the contingency 

measure plans requires prior or 

concurrent SIP approval of the measures 

in those plans. With respect to other 

ROP plans, all of the measures are either 

Federal measures that have been 

promulgated by EPA or state measures 

that have been approved by EPA as SIP 

revisions into the District’s, Maryland’s 

and Virginia’s SIPs. However, as

2100 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

discussed in section V. of this 

document, not all of the contingency 

measures have been finally approved at 

this time. EPA has, however, at least 

proposed approval of all of these 

measures. Final approval of the post 

1996–1999 ROP plans, the post 1999–

2005 ROP plans and the contingency 

measures plan cannot be granted unless 

and until EPA has fully approved these 

contingency measures into the 

applicable SIPs.

IX. Proposed Actions 

A. The District of Columbia—Post 1996–

1999 Rate-of-Progress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

District of Columbia’s 1996–1999 ROP 

plan SIP revision for the Washington 

area which was submitted on November 

3, 1997, as supplemented on May 25, 

1999, and the TCMs in Appendix H of 

the May 25, 1999 submittal. Final 

approval is contingent upon final 

approval of the contingency measure 

plan in the 2004 SIP revisions. 

B. The District of Columbia—1990 Base 

Year Inventory Revisions 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

revision to the 1990 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory submitted by the 

District of Columbia on September 5, 

2003 as supplemented on February 25, 

2004. 

C. The District of Columbia—Post 1999–

2005 Rate-of-Progress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

District of Columbia’s post 1999–2005 

ROP plan SIP revision for the 

Washington area which was submitted 

on September 5, 2003 as supplemented 

on February 25, 2004 and the TCMs in 

Appendix J of the February 25, 2004 

submittal. Final approval is contingent 

upon final approval of the contingency 

measure plan in the 2004 SIP revisions. 

D. The District of Columbia—VMT 

Offset SIP 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

the District of Columbia has adopted 

sufficient TCMs to address growth in 

VMT and number of vehicle trips as 

required under section 182(d)(1)(A). 

E. The District of Columbia—

Contingency Measure Plan 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

District of Columbia’s contingency 

measure plan SIP revision for the 

Washington area which was submitted 

on September 5, 2003, as supplemented 

on February 25, 2004. Final approval is 

contingent upon final approval of 

enough measures in the contingency 

measure plan to represent a 3 percent 

reduction of the 2002 baseline 

emissions and final approval of the 

following measures identified by the 

District of Columbia as measures in the 

plan: The District’s rules for consumer 

products, motor vehicle refinishing, 

AIM, solvent cleaning and portable fuel 

containers. 

F. Maryland—Post 1996–1999 Rate-ofProgress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Maryland’s post 1996–1999 ROP plan 

SIP revision for the Washington area 

which was submitted on December 24, 

1997, as supplemented on May 20, 

1999, and the TCMs in Appendix H of 

the May 20, 1999 submittal. Final 

approval is contingent upon final 

approval of the contingency measure 

plan in the 2004 SIP revision. 

G. Maryland—1990 Base Year Inventory 

Revisions 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

revision to the 1990 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory submitted by 

Maryland on September 2, 2003 as 

supplemented on February 24, 2004. 

H. Maryland—Post 1999–2005 Rate-ofProgress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Maryland’s post 1999–2005 ROP plan 

SIP revision for the Washington area 

which was submitted on September 2, 

2003 as supplemented on February 24, 

2004 and the TCMs in Appendix J of the 

February 24, 2004 submittal. Final 

approval is contingent upon final 

approval of the contingency measure 

plan in the 2004 SIP revisions.

I. Maryland—VMT Offset SIP 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Maryland has adopted sufficient TCMs 

to address growth in VMT and number 

of vehicle trips as required under 

section 182(d)(1)(A). 

J. Maryland—Contingency Measure Plan 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Maryland’s contingency measure plan 

SIP revision for the Washington area 

which was submitted on September 3, 

2003, as supplemented on February 24, 

2004. Final approval is contingent upon 

final approval of enough measures in 

the contingency measure plan to 

represent the 3 percent reduction of the 

2002 baseline emissions and of the 

following measures identified by 

Maryland as measures in the plan: 

Maryland’s rules for consumer products, 

AIM, and portable fuel containers. 

K. Virginia—Post 1996–1999 Rate-ofProgress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Virginia’s post 1996–1999 ROP plan SIP 

revision for the Washington area which 

was submitted on December 29, 1997, as 

supplemented on May 25, 1999, and the 

TCMs in Appendix H of the May 25, 

1999 submittal. Final approval is 

contingent upon final approval of the 

contingency measure plan in the 2004 

SIP revisions. 

L. Virginia—1990 Base Year Inventory 

Revisions 

EPA is proposing approval of the 

revision to the 1990 Base Year 

Emissions Inventory submitted by 

Virginia on August 19, 2003 as 

supplemented on February 25, 2004. 

M. Virginia—Post 1999–2005 Rate-ofProgress Plan and TCMs 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Virginia’s post 1999–2005 ROP plan SIP 

revision for the Washington area which 

was submitted on August 19, 2003 as 

supplemented on February 25, 2004 and 

the TCMs in Appendix J of the February 

25, 2004 submittal. Final approval is 

contingent upon final approval of the 

contingency measure plan in the 2004 

SIP revisions. 

N. Virginia—VMT Offset SIP 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

Virginia has adopted sufficient 

transportation control measures 

necessary to address growth in VMT 

and number of vehicle trips as required 

under section 182(d)(1)(A). 

O. Virginia—Contingency Measure Plan 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Virginia’s contingency measure plan SIP 

revision for the Washington area which 

was submitted on August 19, 2003, as 

supplemented on February 25, 2004. 

Final approval is contingent upon final 

approval of enough measures in the 

contingency measure plan to represent 

the 3 percent reduction of the 2002 

baseline emissions and of the following 

measures identified by Virginia as 

measures in the plan: Virginia’s rules for 

motor vehicle refinishing, AIM, solvent 

cleaning and portable fuel containers.

P. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

MVEBs established and identified in the 

Post 1996–1999 and Post 1999–2005 

ROP Plans for the Washington area 

submitted by the District, Maryland and 

Virginia on the dates as provided in this 

document. The MVEBs for 1999 in the 

1996–1999 ROP plan are 128.5 tons per 

day of VOC and 196.4 tons per day of 

NOX. The MVEBs in the 1999–2005 ROP 

plan are: 

(1) For 2002, 125.2 tons per day for 

VOC and 290.3 tons per day of NOX; 

and

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2005 / Proposed Rules 2101

(2) For 2005, 97.4 tons per day for 

VOC and 234.7 tons per day of NOX. 

EPA is also initiating the adequacy 

process under 40 CFR 93.118(f) for the 

2005 budgets in the 1999–2005 ROP 

plans. EPA will not be initiating a 

separate adequacy process. Persons 

wishing to comment on the adequacy of 

these MVEBs should do so at this time. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

all these proposed actions and the 

associated issues discussed in this 

document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final actions. 

X. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)). This action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (15 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes 

to approve pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). This proposed rule also 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. In reviewing 

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. In this context, in the absence of a 

prior existing requirement for the State 

to use voluntary consensus standards 

(VCS), EPA has no authority to 

disapprove a SIP submission for failure 

to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. As required by 

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA 

has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the 

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental 

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 

and Avoidance of Unanticipated 

Takings’’ issued under the executive 

order. This proposed rule to approve the 

District of Columbia’s, Maryland’s and 

Virginia’s post 1996–1999 and post 

1999–2005 ROP plans, changes to the 

1990 base year inventory, a contingency 

measures plan, certain transportation 

control measures (TCMs), and a 

demonstration that each SIP contains 

sufficient transportation control 

measures to offset growth in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) as necessary to 

demonstrate ROP and attainment of the 

1-hour national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) for the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC area does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: January 5, 2005. 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 05–617 Filed 1–11–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 194 

[FRL 7860–2] 

Proposed Approval of Waste 

Characterization Activities at the 

Hanford Central Characterization 

Project for Disposal at the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening 

of public comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA, we, or Agency) is 

announcing, and soliciting public 

comment for 45 days on, EPA’s 

proposed approval of the Hanford 

Central Characterization Project (CCP) to 

characterize retrievably-stored, contacthandled, transuranic (TRU) debris waste 

for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP). EPA is also proposing to 

designate any changes or expansions to 

this waste characterization approval as 

Tier 1, according to EPA’s recently 

effective procedures for approval of 

WIPP waste generator sites. A Tier 1 

designation means that DOE must first 

obtain written approval from EPA prior 

to disposing of waste characterized 

using new or revised processes, 

equipment, or waste streams. The 

documents related to this proposed 

approval are available for review in the 

public dockets listed in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. In accordance with our 40 

CFR 194.8(b) approval process, the EPA 

conducted an inspection of the Hanford 

CCP from September 8–12, 2003. The 

purpose of the inspection was to 

determine the technical adequacy of the 

CCP as implemented at Hanford for the 

characterization of transuranic waste 

from the Plutonium Finishing Plant 

(PFP) to be disposed of at the WIPP in 

New Mexico. During the EPA 

inspection, EPA evaluated several waste 

characterization (WC) activities used to 

characterize retrievably-stored, contacthandled debris waste. EPA evaluated 

the equipment, procedures and 

personnel training/experience for 

acceptable knowledge (AK), 

nondestructive assay (NDA), 

nondestructive examination (NDE) and 

data transfer for the WIPP Waste 

Information System (WWIS).

DATES: EPA is requesting public 

comment on the documents. Comments 

must be received by EPA’s official Air 

Docket on or before February 28, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted by mail to: EPA Docket