J~ FS 

yJ 

C ~ ~ 

\\// 0 lit A111ir 'r 

Z~~~lq~ PROZ~G~ _ AUG 16 2005 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a S te Implementation Plan 

Office of Air Quality PI 

Stephen D. Page, Director 

Office of Transportation and Air Qu 

Margo Tsirigotis Oge, Director 

TO: Air Division Directors 

Attached is a final document that provides guidance to States and local areas on State 

implementation plan (SIP) credit from a group, or "bundle," of pollution control measures or 

strategies considered in the aggregate. The guidance addresses an issue raised by States at the 

2004 Air Innovations Conference and responds to recommendation number 3 .1 from the Air 

Quality Management Workgroup which was subsequently endorsed by the Clean Air Act 

Advisory Committee. It has been jointly developed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards and the Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

Some areas have implemented most available traditional emissions control strategies and 

want to try new types of pollutant reduction strategies to attain or maintain the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS). However, States are often discouraged from adopting or 

overlook certain innovative measures because they are typically small in quantity and may not 

individually result in significant SIP emissions reductions credit . In the aggregate, however, such 

measures can result in a positive impact on air quality and may have other benefits not directly 

related to attaining or maintaining the NAAQS. 

The guidance supports the development of additional emissions reductions from 

innovative approaches by describing how States can identify individual voluntary and emerging 

measures and "bundle" them in a single SIP submission. The emissions reductions for each 

measure in the bundle would be quantified and, after applying an appropriate discount factor for 

uncertainty, the total reductions would be summed together in the SIP submission. After SIP 

approval, each individual measure would be implemented according to its schedule in the SIP. It 

is the performance of the entire bundle (the sum of the emissions reductions from all the 

measures in the bundle) that is considered for SIP evaluation purposes, not the effectiveness of 

any individual measure. 

~SED ST,qT 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

Internet Address (URL) " http~//www epa gov 

Recycled/Recyclable -Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper 
Please distribute this guidance to your State and local air pollution control agencies, 

interested members of the regulated community and the public . An electronic version of this 

document will be posted at http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg under "Recent Additions." If your staff 

have any questions regarding this guidance, please have them contact David Solomon at (919) 

541-5375. 

Attachment 

cc: 

Lydia Wegman 

David Solomon 

Air Program Managers 

Greg Green 

Jeff Clark 

Bill Harnett 

Sally Shaver 

Peter Tsirigotis 

Rob Brenner 

Suzanne Rudzinski 

Brian Mclean 

Howard Hoffimn 

Richard Ossias 

Kevin McLean 

Sara Schneeberg 

Julie Rosenberg 

Jay Benforado 

Jim Yarbrough 
United States Office of Air and Radiation August 2005 

Environmental Protection 

Agency 

. JN~tED ST,qT~s 

INCORPORATING BUNDLED MEASURES IN A 

Z~Q o2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

'Qt PROSE 
INCORPORATING BUNDLED MEASURES IN A 

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP) 

Prepared by the 

Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

and 

Transportation and Regional Programs Division 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S . Environmental Protection Agency 

August 2005 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section A: Introduction 

1 . What is the purpose of this policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

2 . What does it mean to bundle measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

3 . What does it mean that this is a policy and not a regulation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

4 . What types of air pollution control measures or strategies does this policy address? . 2 

5. Is this policy applicable to Tribes if they choose to develop a Tribal 

Implementation Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

6. What are other relevant EPA policies and guidance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

7. Whom should you contact about Federal approval of bundled measures? . . . . . . . . . . 5 

8. Whom should you contact if you have any questions on this policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Section B: What sources, programs, and authorities are relevant to this policy? 

9. What source types may be addressed in a bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 

10. Can programs approved under this policy replace existing programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

11 . What is the authority for approving bundled measures under the Clean Air Act? . . . 7 

12 . What limitations apply to programs approved under this policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

13 . How does a State get SIP approval under this policy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 

14 . What should a State do if the evaluation reveals a shortfall between predicted 

and actual emissions reductions from a bundle of measures that have been 

implemented? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 

15. How does this guidance document affect EPA's existing guidance on transportation 

control measure (TCM) substitution? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 

16. How does this guidance document affect transportation conformity 

determinations? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 

17. How long does this policy last? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Section C: What specific guidance applies to bundled measures? 

18. When should a State consider using bundled measures in a SIP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

19. What types of measures are appropriate to bundle? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

20. Can a SIP have more than one bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

21 . How should you calculate the emissions reductions from a bundle of measures? . . 15 

22. How should a State evaluate the effectiveness of a bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . 17 

23 . What is the timing of evaluation and reconciliation for a bundle of measures? . . . . 18 

24. Can more than one State adopt the same bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 

25 . Can the non-air-quality benefits of a bundle of measures be considered? . . . . . . . . . 20 

Appendix A: SIP COMPLETENESS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR BUNDLED 

MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 

Appendix B: BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS MEASURES 

TO RECEIVE FEDERAL APPROVAL IN A SIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 
Appendix C: POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

Appendix D: HOW TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM EMISSIONS 

REDUCTIONS ALLOWED FOR BUNDLED MEASURES IN A SIP . . . . . . . 37 

Appendix E: BUNDLED MEASURES SIP EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

BACT Best Available Control Technology 

BART Best Available Retrofit Technology 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CO Carbon Monoxide 

EAC Early Action Compact 

EIP Economic Incentive Program 

HIR Heat Island Reduction 

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NESHAPs National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NSPS New Source Performance Standard 

NSR New Source Review 

NOx Nitrogen Oxides 

PM Particulate Matter 

RACT Reasonable Available Control Technology 

RFP Reasonable Further Progress 

ROP Rate of Progress 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

S02 Sulfur Dioxide 

TAR Tribal Authority Rule 

TCM Transportation Control Measure 

TIP Tribal Implementation Plan 

VOC(s) Volatile Organic Compound(s) 
(Note to the reader : as used in this document, the terms "you" and "your" refer to a State or 

States) 

Section A: Introduction 

1 . What is the purpose of this policy? 

Many areas of the country still must adopt and implement additional measures to meet 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) SIP requirements for attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP), 

rate of progress (ROP) or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Some areas have implemented most available traditional emissions control strategies and want to 

try new types of pollutant reduction strategies to attain or maintain the NAAQS. However, 

States are often either discouraged from adopting or overlook certain innovative measures 

because they are typically small-scale and may not individually result in significant SIP 

emissions reductions credit . In the aggregate, however, such measures can result in a positive 

impact on air quality and may have other benefits not directly related to attaining or maintaining 

the NAAQS. 

This policy supports the development of additional emissions reductions from innovative 

approaches to improving air quality by providing provisional pollution reduction credit up-front 

towards achievement of attainment, RFP, ROP or maintenance requirements from a group, or 

"bundle," of pollution control measures or strategies considered in the aggregate . 

2. What does it mean to bundle measures? 

States can create a bundle by identifying individual measures and "bundling" them in a 

single SIP submission. The emissions reductions for each measure in the bundle would be 

quantified and, with an appropriate discount factor for uncertainty applied, the total reductions 

would be summed together in the SIP submission. After SIP approval, each individual measure 

would be implemented according to its schedule in the SIP . It is the performance of the entire 

bundle (the sum of the emissions reductions from all the measures in the bundle) that is 

considered for SIP evaluation purposes, not the effectiveness of any individual measure. 

3. What does it mean that this is a policy and not a regulation? 

The CAA and implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51 contain legally binding 

requirements . This policy document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor 

is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose binding, enforceable requirements on any party, 

and may not be applicable in all situations . The EPA and State decision makers retain the 

discretion to adopt approaches for approval of SIP measures that differ from this guidance where 

appropriate and consistent with applicable law. Any final decisions by EPA regarding a 

particular SIP measure will only be made based on the statute and regulations in the context of 

EPA notice-and-comment rulemaking on a submitted SIP revision. Therefore, interested parties 
may raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and appropriateness of 

its application to a particular situation; EPA will, and States should, consider whether or not the 

recommendations in the guidance are appropriate in a particular situation. This guidance is a 

living document and may be revised periodically without public notice. However, the EPA 

welcomes public comments on this document at any time and will consider those comments in 

any future revision of this guidance document. Finally, this document does not prejudice any 

future final EPA decision regarding approval of any SIP measure. 

4. What types of air pollution control measures or strategies does this policy address? 

This policy addresses the following air pollution control measures or strategies for 

attainment, RFP, ROP or maintenance requirement purposes : 

1 . Stationary source emissions reductions measures or air quality improvement 

strategies that do not meet the enforceability requirement against a source (known 

as a "voluntary" measure) or quantification requirement (known as an "emerging" 

measure) in the standard way as covered by EPA's policy on "Incorporating 

Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan," dated 

September 31, 2004 .' 

2. Mobile source emissions reductions measures; including idling reduction 

measures for trucks, locomotives, and school buses ; retrofit programs; measures 

implemented under the Best Workplaces for Commuters program; parking cashout programs; employer-based telecommuting programs; small engine buyback 

and programs addressed by EPA's "Mobile Source Voluntary Measures 

Guidance," dated October 24, 1997. 

3 . Traditional emissions reductions measures that individually have small amounts 

of emissions reductions and typically would not be included in a SIP.z 

Some specific examples of measures that might be appropriate to bundle are included in 

Appendix C. 

' A voluntary measure is a measure or strategy that is not enforceable against an 

individual source . An emerging measure is a measure or strategy that does not have the same 

high level of certainty as traditional measures for quantification purposes. A stationary source 

measure can be both a voluntary and an emerging measure. 

2 Traditional emissions reductions measures differ from voluntary and emerging measures 

in that they are enforceable against an individual source and can be reliably and replicably 

measured or determined. 
5. Is this policy applicable to Tribes if they choose to develop a Tribal Implementation 

Plan? 

Yes. The 1990 CAA Amendments provide authority for Tribes to implement CAA 

programs and instructed EPA to adopt regulations so that eligible Tribes may manage their own 

EPA-approved air pollution control programs under the CAA. The 1998 Tribal Authority Rule 

(TAR) implements the provisions of section 301(d) of the CAA to authorize eligible Tribes to 

develop their own tribal programs. Under the TAR, a Tribe may be approved by EPA to be 

eligible to be treated in the same manner as a State for one or more CAA programs. Such a 

program may include, but is not limited to, a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP) . To the extent 

any of the measures included in this guidance are available for implementation by a Tribe, the 

Tribe may include bundled measures as part of its proposed TIP . As the TAR makes clear, tribal 

governments are not required to submit a TIP, nor are they subject to deadlines mandated under 

the CAA. However, EPA must meet its obligations under the CAA. Once a Tribe decides to 

submit bundled measures as part of a TIP, it would be required to meet the evaluation timeframes 

identified in this guidance . 

6. What are other relevant EPA policies and guidance? 

The EPA has issued policies and guidance for economic incentive programs, including 

emerging and voluntary measures and programs. They include : 

A. "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," EPA- 452/R-01-

001, January 2001 . This guidance provides additional information on developing 

and implementing economic incentive based control strategies and is commonly 

called the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) . Emissions reductions that are to 

be used in trading programs must be consistent with the EIP. This guidance is 

available at : www.epa .gov/ttn/oarpg,/tl /memoranda/eipfin.pdf. 

B. "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP)," issued September 2004. This policy covers only stationary sources and is 

available at : www.epa .gov/ttn/oarpg/tl/memoranda/evm ievm~.pd£ 

C. "Mobile Source Voluntary Measures Policy," October 24, 1997. This policy 

could cover programs that reduce idling emissions from trucks, locomotives, and 

school buses, retrofit programs, commuter benefit programs such as Best 

Workplaces for Commuters programs, parking cash-out programs, employerbased telecommuting programs, and other programs, such as small-engine 

buyback programs, road congestion pricing, and other transportation-related 

controls. This guidance is available at : 

http://www.epa. ov/otaq/transp/trancont/vmep-Rud .pdf . 

D. "Guidance on SIP Credits for Emission Reductions from Electric Sector Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures," August 5, 2004. Electric sector 

energy efficiency and renewable energy measures typically will be emerging and 

voluntary measures. This guidance document is available at : 

www.epa. gov/ttn/oarpg,/tl /memoranda/ereseeremgd .pdf. 

This guidance on bundled measures does not change or alter any prior EPA guidance on 

the requirements for including an air pollution control measure, including a voluntary or an 

emerging measure or program, in a SIP. In addition, this SIP policy does not change any 

requirements in EPA's transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR part 93) for transportation 

plan, transportation improvement program, and project conformity determinations, as described 

in Question 15 of this document. The following table illustrates the relationship of these 

applicable policies to various SIP measures. Key considerations involved in determining the 

applicability of the policies are the type of source category (i .e ., stationary or mobile) involved, 

and whether the measure is a traditional economic incentive program, or an emerging or 

voluntary program (as defined in the policies above) . 

Policies and Guidance Traditional Voluntary Emerging Voluntary 

economic stationary stationary mobile 

incentive source' source Z source 

program measure measure measure 

measure 

A. "Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs" 

B. "Incorporating Emerging and ` 

Voluntary Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)" 

C. "Mobile Source Voluntary Measures 

Policy" 

D. "Guidance on SIP Credits for 

Emission Reductions from Electric 

Sector Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy Measures" 4 

E. Incorporating Bundled Measures in a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

3 "Stationary source" includes "area sources ." 

4 An electric sector energy efficiency and a renewable energy measure will typically be 

both voluntary and emerging in nature . 
7. Whom should you contact about Federal approval of bundled measures? 

To facilitate Federal approval of bundle of measures, States are encouraged to work with 

their EPA Regional Office during the SIP development process. 

8. Whom should you contact if you have any questions on this policy? 

State agencies, the regulated community and members of the public with questions 

concerning a case-specific application of this guidance should contact the EPA Regional Office 

with responsibility for the air quality planning in the area where SIP credit is being sought . 

For general questions about this guidance, please contact David Solomon of EPA's Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards at (919) 541- 5375, or email solomon.david(~a,epa. ov. 

For questions relating to mobile sources and this guidance, please contact Mark Coryell 

of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality at (734) 214-4446, or email 

cor,yell .mark@ena.gov. 

For questions relating to transportation conformity determinations and this guidance, 

please contact Meg Patulski of EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality at (734) 214-

4842, or email patulski.meg_a,epa.gov. 
Section B: What sources, programs, and authorities are relevant to this policy? 

9. What source types may be addressed in a bundle of measures? 

Under this policy on incorporating bundled measures into a SIP, emissions reductions 

strategies may cover any of the following sources of a criteria pollutant or precursor to a criteria 

pollutant: 

A. Stationary sources or emission points within a stationary source, including any 

building, structure, facility or installation that emits or may emit an applicable 

criteria air pollutant or precursor. 

B. Area sources that are too small and/or too numerous to be individually included in 

a State's stationary source emissions inventory. This category could include 

facilities that directly emit applicable criteria pollutants or their precursors, 

products or services sold by wholesale or retail operations that may emit criteria 

pollutants or their precursors, and individual consumers who may use products or 

services that emit criteria pollutants or their precursors . (However, for emissions 

reductions to be used for SIP requirements, the aggregate emissions from the 

source category, if not individual sources, would need to be explicitly identified in 

the applicable SIP inventory.) 

C. Certain stationary sources that indirectly affect emissions or ambient air 

concentrations of criteria pollutants, such as lighter colored road asphalt, 

reflective roofs, strategic tree planting or energy efficiency measures . Typically, 

strategies that contain these sources are often referred to as "heat island reduction" 

or "energy efficiency programs ." 

D. Mobile emissions sources that are addressed by programs that reduce idling 

emissions from trucks, locomotives, and school buses, retrofit programs, and 

small-engine buyback programs. This category also includes measures where 

employers offer incentives for commuters to use alternative means of arriving at 

their worksite, such as mass transit, carpools and vanpools, and telework . 

Providing employees such commuter benefits may result in removal of cars from 

the road and a subsequent reduction in criteria pollutants . One way to do this is 

by conducting a Best Workplaces for Commuters campaign (See Appendix C for 

more information) . 

Bundled measures should include only those measures that are considered to be voluntary 

or emerging measures, or traditional measures too small-scale to be typically included in a SIP. 

(See answer to Question 4, above.) 
10. Can programs approved under this policy replace existing programs? 

Voluntary and emerging measures should not replace existing measures already required 

in an applicable permit or SIP . This "antibacksliding" provision is necessary to ensure that less 

certain or less enforceable strategies cannot be substituted for currently required and enforceable 

activities . 

11. What is the authority for approving bundled measures under the Clean Air Act? 

The EPA has the authority to approve programs under this policy using the following 

sections of the CAA: 

A. 110 and 172 regarding emissions reductions needed to achieve attainment 

of the NAAQS; 

B. 182 regarding economic incentive provisions ; and 

C. 175A regarding maintenance plans. 

In light of the increasing incremental cost associated with further stationary and mobile 

source emissions reductions and the difficulty of identifying additional stationary and mobile 

sources of emissions reductions, EPA believes that it needs to encourage innovative approaches 

to generating emissions reductions . Consequently, EPA believes that it is appropriate and 

consistent with the CAA to allow a small percentage of the total emissions reductions needed to 

satisfy ROP, RFP, attainment, and maintenance requirements to come from programs that may 

not fully meet the traditional requirements for approval, where appropriate safeguards are 

provided.' 

This policy places clear responsibility on a State to ensure that the emissions reductions 

necessary to meet applicable CAA requirements are achieved. This includes an enforceable SIP 

commitment, under timeframes discussed below, to evaluate the effectiveness of the bundled 

measures after they are implemented, and to remedy any shortfalls in emissions reductions . In 

the event the bundled measures do not achieve the projected emissions or criteria pollutant 

reductions, the State needs to remedy any SIP shortfall quickly by enforceable emissions 

reductions from other sources or by showing that the emissions reductions are not needed to 

achieve applicable attainment, maintenance, or RFP/ROP requirements . The State would make 

this "showing" or adopt the required enforceable emissions reductions from other sources 

through a SIP revision . 

5 Appendix B contains a list of the basic requirements that SIP measures need to meet. 

7 
12. What limitations apply to programs approved under this policy? 

A. Percent limitation 

Due to the innovative nature of voluntary and emerging measures, EPA believes that it is 

appropriate to limit the amount of emissions reductions allowed for approval from such 

measures. For voluntary and emerging measures covering stationary sources, there is a 

presumptive limit of six percent.' A separate limit of three percent applies to voluntary mobile 

source programs. The result is a nine percent limit on the inclusion of voluntary and emerging 

measures in a SIP.' (The nine percent limit includes the six percent stationary source limit for 

voluntary and emerging measures and the three percent voluntary measures limit for mobile 

sources.) Emissions reductions from voluntary and emerging stationary and voluntary mobile 

measures included in a bundle should not exceed the specified percent limits . An example of 

how to calculate the maximum emissions reductions that may be used from voluntary and 

emerging stationary measures and voluntary mobile measures in a SIP is provided in 

Appendix D. 

Because the EPA expects that the majority of measures in a bundle will likely be 

voluntary and emerging in nature, EPA believes that it is appropriate to limit the amount of 

emissions reductions that can be bundled to nine percent, consistent with the limits discussed 

above. The nine percent limit applies to the total of all emissions reductions included as bundled 

measures in a SIP under this policy (including small scale traditional measures), and does not 

change the six percent limit on emerging and voluntary stationary measures and the three percent 

limit on voluntary mobile measures. Where two or more sets of bundled measures are being 

considered, the emissions reductions from all bundles combined should not exceed nine percent. 

B. Episodic limitation 

Bundled measures can include emerging and voluntary measures that are continuous, 

6 The six percent stationary source limit is presumptive in that EPA believes it may 

approve measures into a SIP in excess of the presumptive six percent where a clear and 

convincing justification is made by the State as to why a higher limit should apply in its case. 

Any request for a higher limit will be reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis. 

' The nine percent reduction does not apply to an area's total emissions inventory, but 

only to the increment that is necessary to achieve ROP, RFP, attainment, or maintenance. In 

order to determine this increment, one must subtract the "carrying capacity" (or level of 

emissions at which the NAAQS would be attained) from the projected attainment year inventory, 

reflecting the reductions from all currently adopted Federal/State regulations . The difference is 

the amount of additional reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement. Emission 

reductions from nontraditional measures should not exceed nine percent of this difference. 

8 
seasonal (in effect only during the season in which an area experiences high pollutant 

concentrations) or, for certain actions, episodic (implemented during specific periods of high 

pollutant concentrations, varying by meteorological conditions) . 

Section 123 of the CAA limits the credit States can take for using dispersion techniques, 

that include episodic and supplemental controls on emissions from stationary sources that vary 

based on atmospheric or meteorological conditions. The EPA's regulations implement section 

123 at 40 CFR sections 51 .100, 51 .118, and 51 .119 . One of the purposes of section 123 is to 

make sure stationary sources do not rely upon intermittent controls in order to avoid the 

application of feasible constant emissions controls. In seeking SIP approval for measures under 

this policy, States would need to take care to avoid seeking SIP credit for episodic controls on 

stationary source emissions activities that are feasibly regulated through continuously or 

seasonally applicable emission controls . The EPA could not grant credit to any stationary source 

episodic control measure that falls within the Agency's definitions of "dispersion technique" at 40 

CFR 51 .100(hh)(1)(ii) or "intermittent control system (ICS)" at 40 CFR 51 .100(nn), except as 

allowed by EPA's rules. 

The EPA believes that section 123 should not, however, restrict credit for non-stationary 

source episodic or supplemental emissions reductions measures that apply to consumer actions or 

the use of consumer products or services, for which these controls may represent the only 

feasible type of control. For example, EPA has formally determined that the use of smoke 

management in agriculture and silviculture practices, and episodic curtailment of residential 

wood combustion, are not dispersion techniques limited by section 123 . The use of dust 

suppressants at stationary sources is not a dispersion technique, since these controls are triggered 

by the rate of dust emissions rather than by varying atmospheric or meteorological conditions. 

Seasonal controls that are implemented at pre-determined periods of the year and that do not vary 

with atmospheric or meteorological conditions are not limited by section 123, even if they apply 

to stationary sources. 

Also, EPA has concluded that episodic transportation control measures (TCM) and other 

mobile source related market response measures may be approved into a SIP under the CAA 

under certain circumstances. For example, an ozone nonattainment area may want to credit an 

episodic mobile measure in the photochemical modeling for its attainment demonstration. 

C. Limitations on uses 

The EPA believes that a State can claim emissions reductions in its SIP from emerging 

and voluntary programs for purposes of demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the 

NAAQS, RFP, or ROP. However, if both the evaluation and performance period for a bundle of 

voluntary and/or emerging measures extends beyond the applicable RFP, ROP, or attainment 

year, a State cannot rely on such bundle for achieving emissions reductions for statutory RFP, 

ROP, or attainment SIP requirements. However, emissions benefits from on-road measures can 

continue to be taken for transportation conformity purposes after the attainment date, if areas 
continue to implement the TCMs. 

Voluntary and emerging measures, individually or bundled, cannot be used by a source to 

meet any other emissions reductions requirement such as, but not limited to, the following: 

(1) Reasonable Available Control Technology (RACT), 

(2) Best Available Control Technology (BACT), 

(3) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), 

(4) Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER), 

(5) New Source Performance Standard (NSPS), 

(6) National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), or 

(7) New Source Review (NSR) offsets or emissions reductions for any emissions 

trading program . 

The RACT rules must be adopted and implemented as required even if a State submits an 

emerging measures program. Nothing in this policy relieves a State's obligation to adopt and 

implement required RACT rules. 

Only emissions reductions programs (e.g., programs to reduce ozone precursors) may be 

used for RFP/ROP purposes. Both emissions reductions programs and ambient concentration 

reduction strategies can be used for maintenance and attainment strategy requirements . 

13. How does a State get SIP approval under this policy? 

A State would submit a SIP to EPA that : 

A. Identifies and describes each measure in a bundle, including the 

implementation schedule for each measure in the bundle ; 

B. Contains projections of emissions or pollutant reductions attributable to 

each individual measure in the bundle and the sum of all measures in the 

bundle (including the amount of any discount factor applied), along with 

relevant technical support documentation, including, for emerging 

measures, a full discussion of the relevant best available science 

supporting the measure (see EPA policy on "Incorporating Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)," issued 

September 2004); 

10 
C. Enforceably commits the State to implement those parts of the measure for 

which the State or local government is responsible; 

D. Enforceably commits the State to monitor, evaluate, and report at least 

every three years to the public and EPA on the effect of the emission or 

pollutant reduction measure; 

E. Enforceably commits the State to remedy any SIP credit shortfall in a 

timely manner, as described below, if the bundle of measures does not 

achieve projected emissions reductions; 

F. Meets all other requirements for SIP revisions under sections 110 and 172 

of the CAA; and 

G. Undergoes public notice and comment like any other SIP revision . 

See Appendix A for a description of the SIP approval process for bundled measures. 

14. What should a State do if the evaluation reveals a shortfall between predicted and 

actual emissions reductions from a bundle of measures that have been 

implemented? 

The SIP submittal needs to include an enforceable commitment that if the State learns 

through program evaluations (or by other means) of a shortfall (i .e ., projected pollutant 

reductions from a bundle were not or will not be achieved), the State will quickly correct the 

problem by providing enforceable emissions reductions from other sources or by showing that 

the emissions reductions are not needed for attainment, maintenance, or RFP/ROP, as applicable . 

The State would make this "showing" or adopt the required enforceable emissions reductions 

from other sources through a SIP revision . 

Generally, if State rulemaking is not required, any shortfall should be corrected as soon as 

possible, and no later than 1 year after the program evaluation is completed (or when a State 

learns of the shortfall) . If State rulemaking is required, the State should proceed as expeditiously 

as possible under the required State process, but the State should correct the shortfall within 2 

years of when the shortfall is discovered . However, if the emissions reductions from a measure 

are necessary to show attainment, maintenance or ROP, the timeframe to correct a shortfall 

cannot exceed the statutory attainment, maintenance or ROP milestone date for the area.' Failure 

'For example, in the 8-hour ozone program, a severe-17 area has a maximum statutory 

attainment date 17 years after the 8-hour nonattainment designation. Since designations were 

effective 6/15/2004, the maximum statutory deadline is 6/15/2021 . However, our 

implementation rule requires that all emissions reductions needed for attainment must be 

implemented by the beginning of the ozone season prior to the attainment date. That would 

11 
to address this shortfall in a timely manner could lead to a finding of nonimplementation under 

section 179(a)(4) of the CAA. In such a case, sanctions may be imposed under section 179(b) of 

the CAA. Additionally, for the 8-hour ozone SIP, any additional measures needed to fill such a 

shortfall must be implemented by the latest compliance deadline required for all emissions 

reductions needed for attainment by the attainment date, generally at the beginning of the full 

ozone season prior to the attainment date. 

15. How does this guidance document affect EPA's existing guidance on transportation 

control measure (TCM) substitution? 

This guidance document does not change the requirements for substituting TCMs in an 

approved SIP that are not being implemented on schedule. On April 7, 2004, EPA issued policy 

guidance that describes the adoption and use of TCM substitution mechanisms, which can be 

found at: http ://www.epa. ovg /otaq/transp/conform/sip-tcm-sub .pdf. A TCM substitution 

mechanism provides SIP flexibility by establishing a process by which TCMs in an approved SIP 

can be removed and replaced with substitute TCMs without the need for EPA to conduct noticeand-comment rulemaking on individual substitutions. In cases where a State has a TCM 

substitution mechanism in its SIP, an individual TCM measures within a SIP bundle that is not 

being implemented according to the SIP's schedule could be substituted with a new TCM for that 

bundle, according to EPA's April 2004 guidance. 

16. How does this guidance document affect transportation conformity determinations? 

This guidance document does not change the requirements for crediting on-road mobile 

source measures in the transportation conformity process. The transportation conformity 

regulation (40 CFR part 93) describes the requirements for including emissions reductions from 

on-road mobile measures in a conformity determination for a transportation plan, transportation 

improvement program, or transportation project. The conformity rule requires a regional 

emissions analysis be conducted for all non-exempt highway and transit projects included in the 

transportation plan and transportation improvement program. In the regional emissions analysis, 

the emissions from future transportation activities are estimated or modeled, just as they are 

when creating or revising a SIP's on-road motor vehicle emissions inventory (or "motor vehicle 

emissions budget") . If SIP credit is obtained for an on-road mobile source measure that is 

bundled and included in the SIP's budget, this does not preclude it from also being used towards 

the transportation conformity determination. 

In addition, this guidance document does not change the transportation conformity 

regulation's requirements for timely implementation of TCMs in an approved SIP. For 

transportation conformity purposes, a TCM is defined in 40 CFR 93 .101 as any measure that is 

specifically identified and committed to in an approved SIP that is either one of the types listed in 

CAA section 108 or any other measure for the purpose of improving air quality by reducing 

likely mean implementation in the spring of 2020 for the area. 

12 
vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion . For example carpool programs, measures to 

increase transit ridership, and high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are examples of TCMs . 

Technology and fuel-based measures that do not target travel decisions, such as inspection and 

maintenance, retrofit, and fuel programs, are not considered TCMs that have to meet timely 

implementation conformity requirements . Section 93 .113 of the transportation conformity 

regulation requires that transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects 

not from a conforming plan and transportation improvement program must provide for the 

timely implementation of SIP TCMs according to the implementation schedules in the approved 

SIP . To implement SIP TCMs in a timely manner, TCMs included in a bundle must include 

specific descriptions and schedules for each measure . The interagency consultation process 

would be used during the development of a SIP bundle, so that air quality and transportation 

agencies can ensure timely implementation of any approved SIP TCMs in future conformity 

determinations . 

17. How long does this policy last? 

The EPA currently plans to evaluate the effect of this policy after 5 years to determine if 

it is meeting its goals. The policies set forth in this document are intended solely as guidance, do 

not represent final agency action, and cannot be relied upon to create any rights enforceable by 

any party. 
Section C: What specific guidance applies to bundled measures? 

18. When should a State consider using bundled measures in a SIP? 

Areas that are just developing SIPs and areas that have not yet adopted available 

traditional measures should consider the more traditional measures first, but may also wish to 

consider emerging or voluntary measures. Typically, voluntary and emerging measures that 

result in significant emissions reductions, or where the resultant reduction in emission can be 

reasonably verified, should be evaluated and submitted individually and not included in a bundle 

of measures. 

In general, you should quantify the emissions reductions for each measure in a bundle. 

States may consider bundling together those relatively small-scale, or local measures, that if 

reviewed individually would be extremely difficult or inordinately resource intensive to quantify 

(or verify) for SIP credit . However, when all reductions are summed together and considered in 

the aggregate such measures may be able to result in meaningful SIP credit, even after an 

appropriate discount factor for uncertainty is applied. In addition, some of these measures in a 

bundle might under-perform while others will likely over-perform. Consequently, by considering 

the total effect of the measures there is a greater likelihood that the desired air quality results will 

in fact be achieved. Moreover, in certain situations it may be possible to better understand or 

verify the effect on air quality from certain small-scale measures evaluated as a group rather than 

individually, especially where these measures are similar in nature . For example, it may be easier 

or more reasonable to quantify or evaluate the effect of all proposed energy efficiency/renewable 

energy measures rather than addressing them individually . In this example, the energy savings 

for each measure would first be quantified, and then the emissions reductions for all energy 

measures would be quantified based on the total energy savings from all measures. 

19. What types of measures are appropriate to bundle? 

Typically, measures included in a bundle should be limited to those voluntary and 

emerging measures that are difficult to quantify or verify from a technical or resource 

perspective. A bundle may also include measures that individually result in relatively small 

emissions reductions or air quality benefits. Individual voluntary or emerging measures 

(including measures that are both voluntary and emerging) that are projected to result in 

significant emissions reductions should not be included in a bundle, unless the purpose of the 

bundle is to significantly improve the likelihood of the larger measure's success. For example, a 

large scale measure involving the purchase of renewable energy might benefit from being 

bundled with smaller measures promoting voluntary energy conservation, with the overall goal 

being reduced emissions from power generation. 

Traditional emissions reductions measures may also be included in a bundle, but should 

be limited to measures that individually are too small-scale to provide a meaningful emissions 

reductions benefit and, as a result, typically would not be included in a SIP . Consequently, a 

14 
traditional emissions reductions measure which results in a significant emissions reductions 

should be evaluated and submitted as an individual measure and not included in a bundle . 

The measures contained in a bundle can be diverse (covering a variety of different 

strategies and source types) or part of a package targeting a specific area or objective (such as, 

heat island mitigation, social marketing or voluntary programs). A bundle may include certain 

measures that are too small to meaningfully quantify, but which nevertheless support the overall 

emission reduction potential of the bundle . In this case, a bundle could include measures for 

which no quantified emissions reductions is assigned in order to increase or support the overall 

likelihood of success of the bundle as a whole. Again, given the timely implementation of TCMs 

is a requirement for transportation conformity, TCMs included in this type of bundle need to 

have a clearly identified implementation schedule. Also transportation agencies must be 

consulted before TCMs are included. 

Each individual SIP (for example, ozone or PM 2.5) may have its own bundle (or 

bundles) of measures, again subject to the applicable percent limitation . Measures bundled in 

one State's SIP (for example, PM 2.5), may or may not be appropriate for bundling in the same 

State's SIP for another pollutant (for example, ozone) . Appendix C contains a listing of certain 

types of measures that may be appropriate to consider in a bundle of measures . 

20. Can a SIP have more than one bundle of measures? 

Yes, a SIP may contain more than one bundle of measures. However, as discussed in 

Question 12 (above), the emissions reductions associated with all bundles for any individual SIP 

should not exceed nine percent. For example, in its ozone SIP, a State could decide to put all 

heat island mitigation measures in one bundle and group other ozone reduction measures 

(otherwise appropriate for bundling) in a second separate bundle . Again, the sum total of the 

emissions reductions from both bundles should not exceed the nine percent limit on the total of 

all bundled measures, nor should the individual measures in the bundles exceed the six percent 

limit on voluntary and emerging stationary source measures and the three percent limit on 

voluntary mobile source measures. 

21. How should you calculate the emissions reductions from a bundle of measures? 

To reflect the fact that the amount of reductions resulting from a bundle of measures may 

be unclear, the emissions reductions from a bundle of measures should be calculated by either : 

(A) applying an appropriate discount factor to the sum of the emissions reductions from 

all the individual measures in the bundle to account for uncertainty; or 

(B) by first applying a measure-specific discount factor to each measure and then 

summing the emissions reductions from all the individual measures in the bundle. In this 

case, the discount factor may vary among the measures. A discount factor is not applied 

15 
to the bundle of measures in this case as the value of each measure has already been 

individually discounted . 

The SIP authority should apply the discount factor to the amount of the emissions 

reductions to reflect the uncertainty in the emissions reductions estimates. The initially assumed 

discount is 20 percent; however, a larger or smaller adjustment factor may be appropriate in 

given circumstances . The greater the uncertainty or amount of reductions claimed, the greater 

the appropriate adjustment factor . The actual amount of the discount factor (as applied to the 

bundle or the individual measures in the bundle) should reflect : 

(1) the degree of uncertainty associated with quantifying the emissions reductions from 

the bundle or individual measures within the bundle ; 

(2) the amount of the emissions reductions being credited for the bundle or individual 

measure within the bundle ; and 

(3) the degree of uncertainty associated with verifying the emissions reductions actually 

achieved by the bundle or individual measure within the bundle. 

A high discount factor should be applied where there is a relatively high degree of 

uncertainty in the ability to quantify, or verify, the emissions reductions, or where the amount of 

the reductions claimed are significant. Overall, the degree of discounting should reflect the 

degree of uncertainty associated with the bundle achieving the desired results, considering the 

magnitude of the emissions reductions claimed. 

A bundle may also include measures that, while expected to help improve air quality, are 

so minute that they are assigned a value of zero for the purpose of quantifying their expected 

emissions reductions .' Such measures should not be considered quantitatively when calculating 

the number of emissions reductions associated with a bundle . In other words, the amount of 

emissions reductions credited to such measures should be zero . Nonetheless, such measures, 

although individually negligible (achieving emissions reductions too minute or uncertain to 

quantify) may be considered in determining the amount of the discount factor, 

where they can be shown to support the overall emissions reductions potential of the bundle . 

Consequently, including numerous individually insignificant measures in a bundle, even those 

showing zero emissions reductions, can benefit the bundle, under certain circumstances, by 

reducing the discount factor as appropriate. However, even when mitigating factors minimize 

uncertainties, a presumptive discount of 20 percent should be applied in all cases unless a 

91t is important to note that the transportation conformity rule requires transportation 

agencies to ensure the timely implementation of all TCMs in an approved SIP, including those 

that are included in a SIP bundle with a value of zero emissions reductions . State and local air 

agencies must consult with State and local transportation agencies when considering the 

inclusion of TCMs in a SIP submission (40 CFR 93 .105) . 

16 
substantial justification is provided for a lower discount rate . 

22. How should a State evaluate the effectiveness of a bundle of measures? 

The primary purpose of program evaluation is to evaluate the amount of reductions 

actually realized through the bundle of measures and to serve as a basis for adjustments to the 

measures if the original estimates of emissions reductions are not being achieved. In the SIP 

submittal, the State needs to develop and include specific program evaluation procedures for the 

bundle of measures. The State should carefully consider what approach can provide the most 

effective means to accurately evaluate the bundle of measures. The approach will depend greatly 

on what type of measures are included in the bundle. States may choose to develop an approach 

to measure the overall effectiveness of the bundle of measures, or one that evaluates the 

effectiveness of the individual measures or groups of measures in the bundle . 

For example, a bundle of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures could 

possibly be evaluated in the aggregate by determining the total electricity displaced at local 

power plants once all the measures are in place and evaluating that value against the original 

assumptions . On the other hand, in evaluating a low volatile organic compound (VOC) retail 

paint sales program submitted as part of a bundle, it may be best to use inventory records to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the individual program . 

Statistical sampling may be an appropriate method for assessing program effectiveness, 

particularly for those measures utilized in the consumer/retail area. For example, for an ozone 

action day approach to discourage the use of VOC-based consumer products (paints, hair spray, 

etc,) it may be appropriate to use a consumer survey to evaluate the program effectiveness. 

The actual effect of some measures on pollutant levels may be impossible to accurately 

determine by empirical measurement and will depend instead on updated modeling or scientific 

calculations . In that case, the state of the science behind the original emissions reductions 

assumptions should be carefully reviewed and updated to reflect any new information that may 

now be available. In all cases, there should be some activity measure that can be evaluated to 

ensure that the emerging measure is being implemented. For example, heat island reduction 

(HIR) measures require actions to increase the reflectivity of roofs, roads, and pavement. 

Although these are not direct measures of ozone reduction, they are necessary actions to 

implement a HIR strategy and can be directly measured and compared to the original 

assumptions in the HIR strategy and modeling. At the same time, the HIR modeling should be 

updated to reflect any better science or new information available regarding the efficacy of HIR 

as an ozone reduction strategy. 

Where practical, States may wish to consider evaluating those measures in a bundle for 

which a zero emissions reductions was assigned to determine the actual emissions reductions 

achieved. Demonstrating actual reductions from such measures may result in additional 

reductions beyond those anticipated by the bundle, or could help demonstrate that the overall 

17 
emissions reductions of the bundle have been achieved in conjunction with reductions from other 

measures that may or may not have achieved anticipated reductions . Where the actual emissions 

reductions achieved from the bundle are demonstrated through the evaluation to be more than the 

amount originally estimated in the SIP, States may take credit for the additional emissions 

reductions consistent with EPA policy on the use of voluntary and emerging measures. 

However, where the emissions reductions demonstrated through the evaluation (or projected 

improvement in air quality from the bundle) is less than the amount originally estimated, the 

amount of credit should be adjusted appropriately, and the shortfall remedied in a timely manner 

(see Question 14 for further information) . 

23. What is the timing of evaluation and reconciliation for a bundle of measures? 

When evaluating a bundle of measures in the aggregate, or a group of measures within a 

bundle, the timeframe should be no longer than the longest timeframe that would apply to any of 

the individual measures in the bundle or group, and analysis must be completed within the 

timeframes as necessary to meet any applicable statutory or regulatory requirements . 

When evaluating an individual measure in a bundle, States should evaluate the measure 

within the timeframes set forth in EPA policy and guidance on using voluntary and emerging 

measures . For stationary source measures, see EPA's policy on "Incorporating Emerging and 

Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)," issued September 2004 . For mobile 

measures, see EPA's "Mobile Source Voluntary Measures Guidance," dated October 24, 1997 . 

A summary of these policies is provided below. 

A. Evaluating individual emerging stationary source measures 

The State should enforceably commit to completing an initial evaluation of the 

effectiveness of an emerging stationary source measure no later than 18 months after 

putting the measure in place. Where possible, this evaluation should be done sooner . 

However, if a State can make a showing that it cannot adequately evaluate the measure 

within 18 months, it may request additional time to complete the evaluation . The extra 

time may be necessary in cases where the measure may take a significant amount of time 

to fully implement, where direct measurement is not possible, or where science has not 

progressed sufficiently in 18 months to provide a more reliable estimate of the 

effectiveness of the measure. However, the State must show that there has been a goodfaith effort to improve the quantification procedures for a particular emissions control 

strategy and that real progress has been made in quantifying the emissions reductions . 

Under no circumstance can the additional time granted for evaluation allow the 

evaluation to occur less than 2 years before the RFP, ROP or attainment date if the 

emissions reductions are being used for these purposes. If the evaluation extends beyond 

these timeframes, the measure should be used solely for maintenance purposes. 

Once a State has determined the initial effectiveness of its emerging measure, it 

18 
may reevaluate its emerging measures at the same time as other SIP measures. This 

evaluation should generally occur every 3 years, unless no requirement to reevaluate SIP 

measures applies to the particular plan. 

B. Evaluating individual voluntary stationary source measures 

The State should enforceably commit to completing an initial evaluation of the 

effectiveness of a voluntary stationary source measure no later than 18 months after 

putting the measure in place (I year to run the measure and 6 months to analyze the data 

to determine the measure's effectiveness) . This evaluation should be done sooner, where 

possible . For instance, for a seasonal voluntary program that may only run for 6 months, 

the timeframe may be 6 months to run the program and 6 months to determine its 

effectiveness . 

Once a State has determined the initial effectiveness of its voluntary measure, it 

may reevaluate its voluntary measures program at the same time as other SIP measures, 

generally every 3 years, unless no requirement to reevaluate SIP measures applies to the 

particular plan, in which case the State would need to reevaluate its voluntary measures 

program at least every 3 years . 

C. Evaluating individual voluntary mobile source measures 

States that use voluntary mobile source measures must commit to evaluating their 

measures. These enforceable commitments would describe how they plan to evaluate 

program implementation and report on program results in terms of actual emissions 

reductions. Program evaluation provisions must be accompanied by procedures designed 

to compare projected emissions reductions with actual emissions reductions achieved . 

The timing of the evaluations must be specified in the SIP submittal . 

For example, a State conducting a Best Workplaces for Commuters campaign 

should use data gathered during the campaign, such as employees covered and 

commuting mode split, along with the COMMUTER Model or other appropriate methods 

as determined by the interagency consultation process, to determine the projected 

reduction in criteria pollutants resulting from the control measures supporting the 

campaign. Within 24 months of the campaign's implementation, a web-based survey 

tool which has been developed by EPA or other appropriate survey methods (including 

commercially available on-line survey services) can be used to survey metro area 

employers and their employees designated as Best Workplaces for Commuters to update 

the originally estimated commute patterns resulting from this voluntary program along 

with updated emissions reductions . (See www.bwc.gov for Commuter Model and webbased tool) . 

A State project that reduces idling from heavy duty trucks by implementing 

19 
electrified parking spaces at a truck stop should use data collected by the operator or 

owner of the truck stop or the electrification technology vendor on the use of the 

technology. Specifics on how to monitor and record data is available in the "Guidance 

for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Truck Idling Emission Reductions in State 

Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity," EPA420-B-04-001, January 2004. 

Once a State has determined the initial effectiveness of its voluntary measure, it 

may reevaluate its voluntary measures program at the same time as other SIP measures, 

generally every 3 years . Where no requirement to reevaluate SIP measures applies to the 

particular plan, the State would need to reevaluate its voluntary measures program at least 

every 3 years. 

24. Can more than one State adopt the same bundle of measures? 

Although it is unlikely that two States would develop bundles that included identical 

types of measures, EPA believes that it is appropriate to allow multiple States to adopt similar 

bundles of measures as long as the individual bundles meet the criteria outlined in this and other 

applicable guidance, and the bundles are appropriate for emissions reductions in a State's 

nonattainment or maintenance area. However, it is important to note that similar bundles may 

not result in similar emissions reductions in different areas. Numerous local factors, such as 

number of sources or population covered, will likely affect the quantity of emissions reductions a 

measure will achieve in any given location. This is especially true for small-scale communitybased measures, which are of the type likely to bundled. Consequently, the emissions reductions 

and air quality benefits attributed to a specific bundle of measures should reflect a case- and sitespecific evaluation. However, EPA recognizes that there may be certain circumstances where, 

through the use of appropriate discounting, a bundle of measures used in one area may be 

transferable to another area with minimal further analysis. 

25. Can the non-air-quality benefits of a bundle of measures be considered? 

Although many innovative types of SIP measures promote improvements in the quality of 

life, the non-air-quality benefits of a bundle of measures cannot be considered for the SIP 

requirements for attainment, (REP), (ROP) or maintenance. However, to the extent that the 

measures that are part of the bundle provide certain co-benefits (such as public health, economic 

or non-air-quality environmental benefits), broader support from the public of the bundled 

measures can be realized by determining and articulating the range of the co-benefits they 

provide. Consequently, to the extent practical, States should consider quantifying and 

communicating how a bundle of measures would improve the quality of life in general, and 

specifically within the nonattainment and surrounding areas. For example, in addition to the air 

quality benefits, a bike path helps reduce vehicle traffic and saves fuel, while those using the path 

benefit from the exercise, money saved in reduced fuel use and reduced vehicle maintenance 

costs. As another example, in addition to reducing air emissions from electric generating power 

plants, energy efficiency and renewable energy measures can save the consumer money and have 

20 
other economic benefits, reduce dependence on foreign sources of fuel, increase the reliability of 

the electricity grid, enhance energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 
APPENDIX A 

SIP COMPLETENESS AND APPROVAL PROCESS FOR BUNDLED MEASURES 

Submittal Criteria 

The SIP submittal identifies and describes each measure in a bundle and: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

contains projections of emissions reductions attributable to each measure, along with 

relevant technical support documentation; 

commits to monitoring, evaluating, and reporting the resulting emissions effect of the 

measure; 

commits to remedying in a timely manner any SIP credit shortfall if the bundle does not 

achieve projected emissions reductions ; 

meets other requirements for SIPs such as: 

- a showing that the State has legal authority. For example, the evidence may be a 

letter from the State's Attorney General's office providing an analysis of the legal 

authority to adopt and implement each State measure under State law. 

- the date of adoption, as well as the effective date of each measure, if this 

information is not already included for each measure. 

- evidence that each measure is consistent with the provisions of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(E) . 

- a copy of each measure, indicating the changes made to the existing approved SIP 

where applicable. The State program and other relevant rules must be signed, 

stamped, and dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully 

implementable by the State . The effective date of each measure must, whenever 

possible, be indicated in the document. 

contains evidence that : 

- the State adopted each measure into the appropriate State mechanism (e .g ., 

applicable State rules), including the date of adoption. 

- the State followed all the procedural requirements in the State's laws and 

constitution in conducting and completing each measure. 

- the State gave public notice of the proposed changes consistent with procedures 

approved by EPA, including the date of publication of this notice . 

- the State held public hearings consistent with the information in the public notice 

and the State's laws and constitution . 

- the State established explicit procedures for including the public in the measure's 

implementation and evaluation phases, to address any environmental justice issues . 

- the State has sufficient funding and resources to collect data and perform a program 

evaluation to determine the actual emissions reductions realized by each measure. 

22 
General Process Timeline 

The general process timeline for getting your measures approved consists of the following 

steps : 

0 

. 

0 

0 

0 

0 

The State develops the rule that contains the regulatory provisions of the measure in 

consultation with appropriate stakeholders - community (including communities of 

concern), industry, academia, environmentalists and regulators . For programs that do 

not require regulations (e .g ., education or incentive programs to reduce consumer 

power demands), then the appropriate authority would adopt an enforceable policy (or 

equivalent) to ensure the measure is implemented. For bundles that include on-road 

mobile source measures, Federal, State, and local air quality and transportation 

agencies must consult on the development of such SIP measures according to the 

federal transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR 93 .105(b)) and the State's 

conformity SIP (required by 40 CFR 51 .390) . 

The State prepares documentation to support the rule . 

The State submits the rule and supporting documentation to the applicable EPA 

Regional Office . 

The EPA Regional Office reviews the SIP submittal for completeness and decides 

whether the rule submittal is complete. 

If the EPA Regional Office considers the SIP submittal to be incomplete, the EPA 

Regional Office will return the SIP submittal . At this point, the State may revise the 

rule and/or documentation and resubmit the package . 

The EPA proposes the rule as a SIP revision in the Federal Register and solicits 

comments on the rule from the public . Based on the public's comments, EPA may 

require that the State make changes in the rule, prior to final approval. 

The EPA publishes the final approval of the (original or modified) rule in the Federal 

Register . 

The EPA Regions may choose to use the direct final processing procedure for 

noncontroversial actions. However, due to the innovative nature of this policy, it is very 

unlikely that any action using this policy will be approved through direct final rulemaking. 
APPENDIX B 

Basic Requirements for Emissions Reduction Measures to Receive Federal Approval in 

a SIP 

NOTE: The following paragraphs provide information on the general requirements for all 

SIP measures. The EPA's various policy documents for traditional and voluntary measures 

may provide further details regarding more specific requirements for such measures . 

In order to adopt and implement emission reduction strategies to meet SIP CAA 

requirements, such as RFP, ROP, attainment demonstrations, and maintenance, the 

reductions from control measures must be: 

A. Surplus - The definition of surplus depends on how the emission reduction will be 

used. 

Emissions reductions used to meet air quality attainment requirements are surplus as 

long as they are not otherwise relied on in air quality-related programs relating to a SIP. For 

voluntary and emerging measures, EPA believes these reductions should also be surplus to 

adopted State air quality programs, even those programs that are not in the SIP, such as a 

consent decree and Federal rules that focus on reducing criteria pollutants or their precursors. 

For emissions reductions used for attainment, RFP, ROP, or maintenance, the 

emissions reductions cannot already be assumed for the same requirement, where the 

requirements are cumulative. An emission reduction may be used for more than one of these 

requirements . For example, emissions reductions used to meet the RFP requirement may 

also be used for the attainment demonstration. However emissions reductions are not surplus 

for such an attainment demonstration if they have already been assumed in that same 

attainment demonstration. 

In other words, States cannot claim emissions reductions that are already assumed in 

the existing SIP, or that result from any other emission reduction or limitation of a criteria 

pollutant or precursor that the State is required to have to attain or maintain a NAAQS or 

satisfy other CAA requirements. In the event that emissions reductions relied on from a 

measure are subsequently required by a new air quality-related program, such as those listed 

above, those emissions reductions would no longer be surplus for this purpose. 

B. Enforceable - Emissions reductions and other required actions are enforceable in the 

SIP if : 

(1) They are independently verifiable ; 

(2) Program violations are defined, as appropriate; 

24 
(3) Those liable for violations can be identified ; 

(4) For emerging measures, the State and the EPA maintain the ability to apply 

penalties and secure appropriate corrective action where applicable; 

(5) They are enforceable in accordance with other EPA guidance on practicable 

enforceability ; 

(6) For voluntary measures, the EPA maintains the ability to apply penalties and 

secure appropriate corrective action from the State where applicable and the 

State maintains the secure appropriate corrective action with respect to 

portions of the program that are directly enforceable against the responsible 

party; 

) Citizens have access to all the emissions-related information obtained from 

the responsible party; 

(8) For emerging measures, citizens can file suits against responsible parties for 

violations, and; 

(9) A complete schedule to implement and enforce the measure has been adopted 

by the implementing agency or agencies . 

C. Quantifiable - Emissions and emissions reductions attributed to the measure are 

quantifiable if someone can reliably and replicably measure or determine them. 

Emissions reductions must be calculated for the time period for which they are used . 

Any uncertainty in the quantification of emissions reductions should be addressed by 

the following EPA guidance documents: "Improving Air Quality with Economic 

Incentive Programs," "Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), " and EPA's "Mobile Source Voluntary Measures 

Policy ." 

D. Permanent - An emission reduction strategy must continue throughout the term that 

the credit is granted unless it is replaced by another measure (through a SIP revision) 

or the State demonstrates in a SIP revision that the emissions reductions from the 

measure are no longer needed to meet applicable requirements. This applies to 

voluntary and emerging measures. 

E. Anti- backsliding - To receive SIP approval of any emerging measure or voluntary 

measure that replaces an existing SIP measure, the State must demonstrate that the 

25 
anti-backsliding requirements of section 110 (1) and 193 of the CAA are met". 

F. Adequately Supported - The State must demonstrate that it has adequate funding, 

personnel, and other resources to implement the measure on schedule. 

1° The EPA has recently clarified applicable requirements for anti-backsliding for the 

ozone NAAQS in 40 CFR part 51, subpart X. 

26 
APPENDIX C 

POTENTIAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES 

The following table of measures is for illustrative purposes only and provides 

examples of some of the types of measures States may wish to consider for bundling." The 

inclusion of a measure on the list does not represent any final decision by EPA regarding a 

particular SIP measure, or bundle of measures. Such decisions will only be made based on 

the statute and regulations in the context of EPA notice-and-comment rulemaking on a 

submitted SIP revision. The list is not meant to be an all-inclusive list, and measures on the 

list may also be considered individually for inclusion in a SIP . The most recent version of the 

list as well as information on voluntary and emerging measures and other innovative 

strategies can be found at : http://www.epa.p-ov/ttn/airinnovations/. 

The types of control measures that Early Action Compact (EAC) areas have 

implemented may also be a useful resource . A list of the EAC measures can be found at : 

http ://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/eac/20041231 eac measures full list.pdf. 

" Note, the term PM as used in this table refers to direct PM only in the form of PM-10, 

PM-2.5 or both, depending on the source type. 

27 
O 

N Op~ ~I' 

w 

O 

~ k v 

U 

~I 

U 

N O 

p ~1 W p. w t`~'-~ 

Q 

O cd ~ C /~O O 

CH ~ Ri U ^' --i 

cd 

Cd C V~]. 

o 

o ~n U "C 

x 

~ O U 

~ C/5 ¢ . 

N ~ O U 

Q", O ~r '~ 

> 

> O bl) c} ., S1, +~ 

~ 

bA ~, 

~ ~ 

= O 

s.., 

Q ' o ~, 

+~O ,"

C~ V 

O . .. v~ O ~ ¢, 

" 

"

- 

~ ~

v~ 

,~ 

~ .~ 

c ) O >, 

~ O 

O '-~ `~.'' > f~ " s" y 

bA ~ O 'd O > 

O ~ 

~ 

C's 

O 

~ 

w O 

.S".to N 

+.; ._~ ," p bA N 

~ 

Cd 

° 

bb ' 3 

o a~ -o ~ F~ 

en t8 o 

to . 0 > 

N ~ o 

'-+ O O ~ .O 

O 

U ~"' 

_ 

~ ~ v) " ~ 

A O ~ ' ai ~ ~ a ,~ 

U «3 

~ ,~ o 

o 

to 

" A~, O " Q~+., Zt4-1 

N 

U 

N 

~ 

O V 

~ w 

O ~ ~ O 

~ ~ ~ o 

~ O ~ ° .~ ° ~ ~ s~ 

U r~! ~ c~ w ~ rx > ° 

,~ u .~ k U ~ U x U ~ U 

° za° ° za~ ° za>° ° za > ° 

o 

O 

o C8 V) 

F W W > > a .~ U 

N 
cr 

b o 

V 

° ~ °' ° ~ o ~ a? 

° 

oa o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

~ 

° 

o 

o 

~ 

° 

o 

o v~ ~o o o 

o 

,0 > 

o ~ , .~ 

Cd Cd N Cd 

0 

N Cd 

o 

~ cv r y 

¢~+ + N d N ~ N y N N 

~ J 

~7 

.~ \ U ,~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . , , . . 

d x ~ c) ¢ 

~ 

too 

c~d ~' U ~ bA ,~ U O 

y~ 

0 

rn ~ 

~ 

'^ 

' 

~ 

. .. ¢ .~ ~ r~ 

c~n ~ 4- -~ ~ ~a 

e) N x 

~ U 

cud ~ 

.c~C 

~ 

0 10 

~'' cGd cC 

to cd bA +~ 

bA ~ 

O 

cd p O O 

U 

., .~ b N bU ~ , 

0 N . ~ 

N 7yO s.. N Cd 

r.+ " ~ U , 

'" bA ~ 

$ O y ~ bA . U r'' . O , d? 

~ c~d i .: 

't"~ '_"' O 

o 

O 

o 

~ ~' 

A ~1 . ~ ~ 

. 

> ~a ~ 

,. 

~ > " ~ ~ ~ (L) ~ a ° -d 

°' ~n -° 

N ,b m . 

- 

~ v) ~ 

- 

' ~ 

~ ,-~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

O ~ ~ 

~ 

k cn 

~ 

" -O 

'd 

"d 

" 

vi cd 

o 

0 

o ~ 

. 

o U C) 

"1 

3 ~ 

~ 

'd ' 

Z:l 

O 

-CJ to 0 

Q) 

~ on ° ~ 

.~ 4) 0 ~ U c~C 

x ~ on ~ 

~ ~ ~ 

0 

.~ 

" 

U N 

o ~ 3 o 

U Cd U .~ 0 ~ ~ U U ~ ~ U " 

u Ts ~ o to on ~o 

0 U ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~+ 

N N ~+ ~ 

~-+ 

~', N ~ sU-~ ~ 

O 

U 

° a~° 

~c 

9L4 AO z ° za °a z ° z°a 

v~ ~ ~ U ["+ 

a ~ o .r., 0 4= 0 

~ cd O 

U 

U c d +-' ~ U TS . .. 

rA bp N O 

F 

~ 

aa ~ ~~a w :b Qa 

N 
' 

~ .~ Ozr~ 

p . ~ o .O O . U ' 

o 

'-' u a 

Q) 

~ ° 

U O Cd o o O +, 

c °' W 7~ 

O .° w ,~o~°° 

= c) r) 

°° ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ x ~~C/) x . ~ 

° ~ b ~ .u 

+ 

64 cn 

~ U U V U U ~ N N V) ~ N 

~ g 

U U 

+cd O >C _ O

In 

O 

V) OW 

U 'O ~ ~ ~ . 

U) 

a' '" U O 

4; ~ .t", U N Q ' 

c~ to O 'o 

" U C U 

W t~ 

p 

~ 

"a 

~ 

~ ~ bU A ~ cC~ 

A 

0 

C/~ 

> p ~~'' ~ O~ 

~ 

O .~ C U .. 

,O'' O O s"' O 'd 

Cj o 

Ej o ~ 64 

A 

O ~ ~U g 

,~ O U O N 

4-i > U ~ U (~ .f : O c2. '' U .5 .

N N 

U 

cd 

_ 

O U O 

b 

cd 

6~ 

` 

> 

O ~ pq ~ >, y ~

~ ~ 

~ 

. ~ 

sU.. 

v; 

" ~' 

~ 

~ 

~ 

y 

'C 

~ "t3 

P. O 

~L ~ ~ 

O Q) 

~ 

U 

O ~ 

¢'' 

.O 

v~ 

~ 

bA 

.~ cd 

~ 

. .-. 

, 4-a ~ 

O N Q" 4-. 'C O y O 

~ id U ~ " ~ N 

>, 

~A 

. ., O W O U 

~ U 

+-- ~ v~ b 

0 

~ y s ., 

" w 

rn b[) cn 

71 ~ :s 

0 

Im 

M rA 

u X u 

2, C) >~ C 0 c) C) 0 

> > Z > 

N 

0 

40. 

b~u Ln 

.0 

m - . 

0 

03 to 0 

0 

0 C,3 En 

0 

t b 

4) 

El cl 

0 bb 

9 Ln 

64 

u 

C.) 

En 
b b b 

-d -d b 0 

f~/1 

+~ 

~ 

++ 

y 

w cd p cd ~ ca ~ cd 

1~ N F~°. N ~ N ~ 

.O . 

b 

Q .~ c~d .~ ~ ,~ , c~d 

O 

m 

~ ' 

cd v 

~- s c C b~.y 

~ 

~ 

, 

C's 

' 

cd O + 

° , ~ . .. . s.. bA 

C " 

+' G) 4; 

N bA 

N cd O 

w 

U 

t~" 

O ' " 

+- 

~ ~ V ° ~ 

~. 

O " 

En 

~ ~ cd 

. 

C bA 4r v~ ` ~ O 

O 4~ ~ 4~-a 

O 

¢, ~ .~y.y ~ O ~ s.. 

' ~ v~ ;~ 

c, >, 

U) ~ 

El s~. 

U O 

" 

a) Cl) C) ~ 

v~ U Cd 2 ~ N 

~A ~" c,_, v~ ~ p~ N 

b 

~ O 

O y., ~ O V) 

.~ ~ bA O N 

+-= 

V) 4.4 ~ Q" ~ ~ N Q, 

~ bA U 

~ 

,'d ~+" ~ 

o ~ ~ 3 o 

° ' 

o b ~ ~ 

 o a~ .o ~ W a .b 

U ~ ~. cn 

I-a V) 

C~ y V1 L, ° 

V) O O 

A~P~.a~ o ~'n~ o o 

s°~. 

O 

o 

~O 

a 

E~ 

o 0 °' 

C7 

° 

U ~O 

M 
u 

° a~ P 

~ G C 

p 

42 

p ° 

d 

C~ ~ N 

c 

F~I v1 v1 N U 

O 

CA E L 

s. . ~ 

7~ 61 

40 

O 

U 

CA U ,~ ~ O U v~ ~ ~ ~ ° 

O p 

s-y 

O 0 

° ~ 

~ 

U v~ v~ ° 'b ° ' ~ ~ 

o ~ ~ 

~ o ~ ~ ~ an 

,o ~ o ~ '> C,, +.~ 

-c ° ~ ~ ¢ ? ~ ~ ~ 

U) V, 'C

;j 

y) C13 

U 

, 

~ 

~ ~ 

A ~-a ~ u, o 

O O 

° 

v~ N 

o 

En N ~ ~ U ~ ~ " ~C 

° 

N 

~ 

~ 

3 

U 

~, ~ 

o 

~ 

V' 

~ ~ .a ° ° ~, 

U r~ U > ~ 3 U o 0 

° 

N 

o ~^ci O O 00~ O 

aa d z z ~za ~ o 

~. x o °' "° 

~G~I n U ~ ~ U 

o °' ° bn 

¢ . o E-~ w 

o ~ 

a w 

, ~ O .fl a 

N 

M 
+"' 2 O O 

i""i Fr '~ 

O 

~ ~ Lr 

r~ ~ 

o ~ ~ 

c~ s 

~ ~n ~ 

o 

U 'b +' 

e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~U o t~~ "" 0 

o U 

~ 

ct 

0.0 U ~ v ^~' 

`+~ 

N 'd >, 

s-, 

' 

~ 

" 

C~ m N ~ "-, cC ~ 

O 

0 

~ 

~ ~. o 

G1~ U s"' " V) " .-U, o _G) ~'p ~ " ~ W y Q, 

cn 

c 

" 

N 

Z '-o bA c En U 

U o "~ U Ln 

'CI ¢ Q. ~ 

+ i -d ~ U . o 

a ~ 

:j U,

C's 

.. 

o '~ 'a ~~ 

3 

~ ° ir ,~ . ., 

v' 

~ 

U 

E 

U ~ ~ '° 

. r. ,-, ~ 

U 

~ 'b ~ cn 

` 

v ~ 

U 

t~U ~ ~ p ~ V) 

0 

~ 

O 

A Q 3 U ~ 

~ U '~ Us-~ 

~ 

' ~ U 

O ' -~ ~ v 

73 

~ 

Q 

~ O 

~ ~ 

°"+ 

'.~ 'b 

,"d 

~ 

~ p" a! +~ ~ 

 

~G a" " ^' ~ 

C 

cd 

" 

U 

" 03 

U y, ,~ G4 N +-' " , U U " 7- ~ r~n 

.. 

.64 

C~ U 0 U " ~ ~ ~ U 

U 1:1 

c' 

~ N 

~ 

" ~ 

~ ~ 

' 

o 

~ " C 

;z 

7~ 

v ~ _ 

."~ 

u 

v~ " - .~ ¢" ~ 

 

i.., 

r-" , ~ y, y 

O 

64 ° (4~ 'r o C 

Vn 

U 

v) k 

U ~ 

> 

v) 

U 

En 

U 

a 

v) 

U 

Z > > > 

U V 

U 

~ 'C3 'Tj 

40, 

o o 

a 

o U ° o ~ 

~'n 

o 

a. ~ ~ 3 ~'n 

E~ 

~ 

C7 

Ln 

C7 "~ ~., 

,a? 

v U U ~ a 

M 

M 
+r 

cd Cl) O t~) O 

a 

~.., 

U 

_ 

'7 s"'' ° ~y, 

° 

,_, 

~ Q! ~ ° 

GCC " 

ai U o 

o ~ "" b . . b . .. 

~~ " ~ 

. . . . 

z U ~ .Icl U ,~ 

' 

, b 

o ~ ~ °. 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ 

~ U, .o 

o ° a iTs 

~ 

d ~. 

~ " o °

s 

d 

~ N ~ ~ O~ v ~ ' 

° 

O 2 

" 

~ ~n a3 ~. . 

N U ^~ ~ N O ~ " U '~ 

~ ~ 0 O 

+c~ G o 

U p 

cd 

O U ~ O 

2 b

o

n O 

~ " ~ 

°

~ U 

?+" 

~ 

Q, 

s.. 

Q.' ° 

~ ~ 

N 

N ~, 

~ 

N ~ ~ bp O . ,- ~ 

:" .' O N 

a. .. 

V 

G) 

4~ to ~a 

5 ~ 

° . .~ 

V `~"' 

~ ~ 

O ~ 

Q R3 

- 

° 

' " ~ " ~ L: ~, 

0 - 

r. , 

v~ , -S 'r +, C) , 

C .f c~ O 

~ ,

O .'.~ 

to o 

o 

6 

-d 3 ~ ~ ~ '~ 

~ 

~ Z 

- 20 0 ° .5 

j - V) 

o o U) ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ .~ ., ~ .~ . 

0 ~: 

" V 

m 

7a "s" 

c3 

3 O U U N ~ V +' 'O ' ~ ~ CC 

V, 

O 

tot 

U U _O m 

^ 

4 

O A a ~ ~ ° U an ~ ~ U ~ o b r+ ° " -" U ~ ~

4 0 

U ~ N 

r 

O S. " - ~ ~ 

~J 

~ ~ 

~ ~ ~ v~ v~l 

" 

U 

+ 

~ 

G) w 

^C 'd 

~-! r. ., 

U 

~ 

p 

~ 

° y V) ~ a) O ~ o .~ p ~ ,_, 

a~ 

. 

~ cw C~ bb 

~ ~ 0 ~ 

.~ 

cn 

a1 

~, 6, b r, 

y v .b ~ . ~ 

~ 

R 

U " O~ CA U N 

Q 

U " c~d 

64 

U U L1. .a N N 

~~ 

O 

C ~ W 'TJ ~ i ~ SC O 

. r F; 

~; U 

U 

~ 

~ a, . ~ 

~ 

°~,' o 

R 

~ ~ r~ ° 

~ ~ 

~ U ~'n 

N 

rx 4 U 

O 

~ 

N 

, Gn 

~ ~ g

cn V) 

w wd ° a ° > 

°° 

z ~z 

64 

o o 

7~ 

Ln 

'b c~a O 

t V) 

bA 

" '+.~ 

Cd 'b7 U 0-~-1 O ~ `U 

~ 

y_, CU/] 

° U 

.., 

~ ~ 

0 0 

bA 

6 

F wa xw v~'0 

M 
u 

U y .~ 

° 

° 

w 

° 

3 

o 0 

. o 

,.~ . . 

x 

o 

0 4~4 to 

b A - -' 

'- 

~ 0 .S , 

O ~ 

C) 

~ `n ~ ~ ~ ¢, j ^C 'd " ~ 

3 ~ 

~ ~ 4J 

bb 

° °` 

0 

o 

o o a~ .~ ~ -° ~ + m tn o .0 1° . 

42 ,~ En 

.- .Si ° Cj ~ ~ (1) ° b 

0 

. Q'' 

~, o ~ 

U ~ U ~ W p 1..; 3 O t1' 

~ O U O 

A O O a ~ O ~ ~ ~; ~ U 3 ~ O ~ - O U 

U 

W u. W a~ a~ ° H a~ ~ M v~ O m o ~ ~c Ts 

~. 

~ ~ 

°3 

cn N .b U U dj 0 -d En O 

'v~ ~ 'v~ " ~ ~ O ~ ~ bp -O 

2 

u 

J Q" cd 

t x G In 

. 2 

v~ +, En m 

~ " o 

T:~ 

. 

o 

Q" 71 O ~:s 0 

U 

~ 

! ~ 

k 

r~ . a! rw ~: ~ o ° ~ ° .a R ,u c n°? ~ 3 

w ~ 

b 

a w ~ a ~ a O a 

CD 

~. 

U ~ 

U 

. N bn 

4.r 

a " 

E~ ~ ro ~ v~ 

M 
~ 3o 

o O 

U 

o 0 

o 0 0 

a 

Cd -d 

o 

. 

° ° 

to 

-a o 

~ t° 

Q., '~ en ~ ~ 

. 

3 ~ tw o 

0 ' : C's 

a C~ o 

b-d ~ 3 .~ ' E ~ 

i8 

0 0 

-0 .5 

°' C 's 3 

en . ~ t,, 

~ 

~ "

6 ~ . 

U 0

0 4.., 

> ~ 

'O 0 

O v~ 

0 ~ 

O 

-E 8 to 

id O 

A Q ° ~ ~ ~~ ~ 3 ~ 

~O 

~ 

V) ~ 

O 

~ 

on 

402 

~ 0 0 U O O 

V v~ U C~ 

~ a~ 

CCS 

a ~ ~ 

¢' c~ 

b s. ., a 

ca 

. ° bn ~ 

~ .'.~~+ .. ~ O ~, a 

~ ~ ~ ~ 

° ~ '°' ~ ~ 3 ~ a, 

> 

:~ o ~ , 

" 4r 

O ~ 

O ~ ," 1?4 ~ O 

O ~ O U 

U '~ 

' 

~ N ''" ~ "d ~ ~ O ~n ~ ' ~. O Q 

U 

O Q v~ O cd ~ ,~ 

v~ 

+, 

v~ s~ ~ t3a ~ ~ ~ 

0 

" '" ~ O k ~ 

N ~ 

~ ~ 

vi ~ q p ~ 

~ O 

U bb ~ 

~ 

, ~ 

N 

Q. ~ ~ 

O >< N 

~ U 

O O 

bp O ~ 

N `+ 

, U 

.'" s'" c d U 'C ,-~ 

0 

N `A O m O 

V, 

c~ 0 " 

+ 

~ 

~" 

U ' ' 

. 

vi 

~ 

" 

sy V 

~ 

O .S . N 

O .C ;3 s-+ N U U ~ 

'C , .d ~ U ~ '~ ~ ~2, O 

O 71 9, 'C O 

~' a 

O OO '

.C O P' ' ~ ,~ 

0 N 

U ri' n . ~ . ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ n ' w ~ ~ a ~ ° ~ ~ n ' ~ .0 ~ 

WWI 

o ,, 

a 

o 0 

a a ~ > Z a O a ~ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

E~ ~n 

M 
APPENDIX D 

HOW TO CALCULATE THE MAXIMUM EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ALLOWED FOR 

BUNDLED MEASURES IN A SIP 

The following example is for illustrative purposes only 

Let's assume that an area's base year emissions level (e .g ., in the year 1990 for the 1-hour 

ozone plans) is 1,200 tons per day and that modeling shows that the area would attain the NAAQS 

if emissions were reduced to 400 tons per day . Also assume that, taking into account the benefits 

of regulations adopted before the plan is prepared, the projected emissions level in the attainment 

year is 700 tons per day, including the benefits of all Federal mobile source regulations issued 

before the plan's adoption date. In this example, the increment necessary for attainment would be 

300 tons per day (700 - 400 tons per day ). 

Applying the six percent limit on the use of voluntary and emerging stationary source 

measures, the State's attainment demonstration may include up to 18 tons per day from these 

measures (6% of 300 tons per day) . Applying the three percent limit on the use of voluntary 

mobile source measures, the State's attainment demonstration may include up to 9 tons per day 

from these measures (3% of 300 tons per day) . The result is a total of 27 tons per day from all 

voluntary and emerging measures (18 tons per day from all voluntary and emerging stationary 

source measures and 9 tons per day from all voluntary mobile source measures). The individual 

18 and 9 ton limits apply whether or not the measures are bundled. 

Applying the nine percent limit on the total of all emissions reductions that may be 

included as bundled measures in a SIP, the State's attainment demonstration may include up to 27 

tons per day from bundled measures (9% of 300 tons per day) . The 27 ton limit applies to the 

total of all bundled measures, which may include voluntary and emerging stationary source 

measures, voluntary mobile source measures and small scale traditional measures. If two or more 

bundles of measures were proposed, the emissions reductions from all bundles should not exceed 

the 27 tons. 
APPENDIX E 

BUNDLED MEASURES SIP EXAMPLE 

The following December 23, 2004 and May 12, 2005 Federal Register Notices, titled 

"Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland and Virginia ; NonRegulatory Voluntary Emission Reduction Program Measures," provide an example of bundled 

SIP measures. 
Federal Register/Vol . 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules 

Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814-2034, or by 

e-mail at wentworth.ellenh?epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, District of Columbia's Approval 

of VOC Emission Standards for Mobile 

Equipment Repair and Refinishing in 

the Metropolitan Washington, DC ozone 

nonattainment area, that is located in 

the "Rules and Regulations" section of 

this Federal Register publication. Please 

note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule, and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment . 

Dated : December 14, 2004 . 

Donald S . Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 04-28088 Filed 12-22-04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 856D-So-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03-OAR-2004-MD-0001 ; R03-OAR2004-VA-0005; FRL.-7852-81 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland and Virginia ; Non-Regulatory 

Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Program Measures 

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 and by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia . These revisions establish a 

number of non-regulatory measures for 

which Maryland and Virginia seek SIP 

credit in rate-of-progress and attainment 

planning for the Metropolitan 

Washington DC 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (the Washington 

area) . The intended effect of this action 

is to propose approval of SIP revisions 

submitted by Maryland and Virginia 

which establish certain non-regulatory 

measures . The non-regulatory measures 

include use of low-or-no-VOC content 

paints by certain state and local 

government agencies, auxiliary power 

units on locomotives, sale of 

reformulated consumer products in the 

76889 

Northern Virginia area, accelerated comment that is placed in the public 

retirement of portable fuel containers by docket and made available on the 

certain state and local government Internet. If you submit an electronic 

agencies, and renewable energy 

measures (wind-power purchases by 

certain local government agencies). This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) . 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 24, 2005 . 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Regional Material in 

EDocket (RME) ID Number R03--OAR2004-MD-0001 and R03-OAR-2004-

VA-0005 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 .makebaCa?epa.gov. 

D. Mail : R03-0AR-2004-MD-0001/ 

R03-OAR-2004-VA-0005, 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-MD-0001 

and/or R03-OAR-2004-VA-0005 . 

EPA's policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at bttp :// 

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 websites 

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 regulation s.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

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 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: On 

February 19, 2004 and February 25, 

2004, respectively, the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

and the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VA DEQ) both 

submitted revisions to their SIPs . These 

SIP revisions included, among other 

things, amendments to the 1990 base 

year emissions inventory for the 

Metropolitan Washington DC 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (the 

Washington area), a rate-of-progress 

(ROP) plan for 1999 through 2005, an 

attainment demonstration, a 

contingency measure plan, enforceable 

cdmmitments to conduct a mid-course 

review, a demonstration that the SIP 

contains sufficient transportation 

control measures to offset, as necessary, 

growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 

a suite of transportation control 

measures and a suite of non-regulatory 

voluntary emission reduction measures . 
76890 Federal Register/Vol . 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules 

This proposed rule pertains only to the 

suite of non-regulatory voluntary 

measures. The other portions of these 

SIP revisions are the subjects of will be 

addressed in separate rulemaking 

actions. 

I . Background 

A. What Are Non-Regulatory Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Program Measures 

and EPA's Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Program Measure Policies? 

Many areas of the country that are 

designated as nonattainment are finding 

it increasingly difficult to find ways to 

achieve additional emission reductions 

needed to attain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Many 

areas have already applied reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) 

and other controls to stationary sources 

and are still not attaining the NAAQS. 

In some cases, areas have chosen to 

control sources well beyond RACT 

levels, but still cannot attain the 

standards . In some cases, areas may 

need or may choose to implement 

additional measures more rapidly than 

can be done by completing the full 

--'- " -'--~°-- 

need to find additional innovative ~ca~ 

emission reduction approaches. One 

way to accomplish this is through 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures. Voluntary emission reduction 

program measures are an alternative to 

traditional "command and control" 

approaches, and have the potential to 

encourage new, untried and costeffective approaches to reduce 

emissions . 

A voluntary emission reduction 

program measure is an action by a 

source that will reduce emissions of a 

criteria pollutant or a precursor to a 

criteria pollutant that the State could 

claim as an emission reduction in its 

SIP for purposes of demonstrating 

attainment, ROP towards attainment, 

reasonable further progress (RFP) 

toward attainment or maintenance of 

the NAAQS, but that is not directly 

enforceable against the source. 

Examples of a voluntary emission 

reduction program measure could 

include retail operations agreeing not to 

sell high emitting VOC products during 

the ozone season, or programs designed 

to educate consumers or sources about 

the effects of their actions on the 

environment . Under EPA's guidance, 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures can be approved if the State 

retains enforceable responsibility for the 

reduction and meets certain other 

obligations . 

EPA has issued guidance and policy 

for incorporating voluntary emission 

reduction program measures into SIPs . 

The first such guidance was a October 

27, 1997 memorandum from Richard D. 

Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, entitled 

"Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary 

Mobile Source Emission Reduction 

Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs)," which was reissued in section 

16.4 "Guidance on Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Programs" of "Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs," United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, EPA-452/R-01-001, January 

2001 . The second was a January 19, 

2001 Memorandum from John Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards entitled "Incorporating 

Voluntary Stationary Source Emission 

Reduction Programs Into State 

Implementation Plans-Final Policy," 

which was reissued in section 16.4 

"Guidance on Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Programs" of "Improving Air 

Quality with Economic Incentive 

Programs," United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, EPA-452/R-01-001, January 

Additional policy and guidance was 

the August 5, 2004 cover memorandum 

from Brian McLean, Director, Office of 

Atmospheric Programs, and from 

Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

entitled "Guidance on SIP Credits for 

Emission Reductions from Electricsector Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Measures" that issued the 

August 2004 document "Guidance on 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits 

for Emission Reductions from Electricsector Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Measures ." 

Voluntary emission reduction 

program measures cannot replace 

existing measures in the SIP and must 

be surplus to technology-based 

requirements of the Act, which include 

but which are not necessarily limited to, 

RACT, BACT, LAER, NSPS or NESHAP 

limits, or rules such as those for 

reducing VOC emissions promulgated 

pursuant to section 183 of the Act, or 

those assumed in a permit (such as 

offsets), or those needed to demonstrate 

conformity with the SIP pursuant to 40 

CFR part 93 and section 176 of the Act. 

EPA believes the authority for 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures derives from various 

provisions of the Act including: sections 

110 and 172 regarding emission 

reductions needed to achieve attainment 

of the NAAQS; section 182 regarding 

economic incentive provisions; and, in 

the case of mobile source measures, 

section 108 regarding transportation 

control measures (TCMs). 

While the policies do not require that 

reduction actions be enforceable against 

individual sources, they place clear 

responsibility on a State to ensure that 

the emission reductions take place . 

State responsibility includes a 

commitment to evaluate the 

effectiveness of each measure and, in 

the event the voluntary emission 

reduction program measures does not 

achieve the projected emission 

reductions, to remedy any SIP shortfall 

by providing enforceable emission 

reductions from other sources or by 

showing that the emission reductions 

are not needed to achieve attainment, 

maintenance, or RFP/ROP requirements . 

B. What Are Voluntary Mobile Source 

Emission Reduction Programs? 

Voluntary emission reduction 

program measures for mobile sources 

are measures that complement existing 

regulatory programs through voluntary, 

non-regulatory changes in local 

transportation activities or changes inuse vehicle fleet and engine fleet 

composition. EPA believes that the Act 

allows SIP credit for new approaches to 

reducing mobile source emissions, 

where supported by enforceable 

commitments to monitor and assess 

implementation and backfill any 

emissions reductions shortfall in a 

timely fashion . This flexible approach is 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

Economic incentive provisions are also 

available in sections 182 and 108 of the 

Act. Credits generated through VMEP 

can be counted toward attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Due to the 

innovative nature of such a program, 

EPA will allow up to 3 percent of the 

total future year emissions reductions 

required to attain the appropriate 

NAAQS, to be claimed under the VMEP 

policy.' 

C. What Are Voluntary Stationary 

Source Emission Reduction Programs? 

The stationary source policy covers 

what are commonly referred to as "area" 

sources which are too small and/or too 

numerous to be individually included 

in a stationary source emissions 

inventory. This category could include 

facilities that directly emit applicable 

I See the October 27, 1997 memorandum from 

Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator 

for Air and Radiation, entitled "Guidance on 

Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans 

(SIPS),!, which was reissued in section 10 .4 

"Guidance on Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Programs" of "Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs," United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 

Radiation, EPA-152/R-01-001, January 2001 . 
Federal Register /Vol . 69, No. 246 /Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules 

criteria pollutants or their precursors, 

such as very small printers or bakeries. 

It could also include products sold by 

wholesale or retail operations that may 

emit criteria pollutants or their 

precursors and individual consumers 

that may use products which emit 

criteria pollutants or their precursors. 

D. What Are Electric-Sector Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Measures? 

Another category of voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

are those electric-sector energy 

efficiency and renewable energy 

projects, initiatives or measures that 

will result in quantifiable reductions in 

emissions at existing fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating units and will 

improve air quality in a nonattainment 

area . 

Some examples of specific energy 

efficiency or renewable energy projects 

could include, but are not necessarily 

limited to supply-side measures, which 

include new and innovative initiatives 

to increase the efficiency or decrease the 

emissions from electricity generation, 

such as renewable energy projects like 

wind powered generation. 

E. What Qualifies for SIP Credit? 

The basic framework for ensuring SIP 

credit for voluntary emission reduction 

program measures is spelled out in the 

various guidance discussed in previous 

paragraphs . Generally, to obtain credit 

for voluntary emission reduction 

program measures, a State submits a SIP 

revision that : 

(1) Identifies and describes the 

measure(s) ; 

(2) Contains projections of emission 

reductions attributable to the program, 

along with any relevant technical 

support documentation ; 

(3) Commits to evaluation and 

reporting on program implementation 

and results ; and 

TABLE 1 .-LIST OF VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION 

76891 

(4) Commits to the timely remedy of 

any credit shortfall should the 

measure(s) not achieve the anticipated 

emission reductions . 

More specifically, the guidance 

suggests the following key points be 

considered for approval of credits . The 

credits should be quantifiable, surplus, 

enforceable, permanent, and adequately 

supported. In addition, the measure(s) 

must be consistent with attainment of 

the standard and with the ROP 

requirements and not interfere with 

other CAA requirements . 

11 . Summary of SIP Revisions 

Submitted by Maryland and Virginia 

A. What Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Program Measures Did the States 

Submit? 

The States submitted program 

descriptions that projected emission 

reductions attributable to each specific 

measure . Those estimates are provided 

in Table 1 . 

PROGRAM MEASURES 

Measure State VOC reduction 

(tons/day) 

NOx reduction 

(tons/day) 

Voluntary emission 

reduction program 

measures policy 

Gas Can (portable fuel containers) Replacement VA, MD . . . . 0.01 . . . .... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . ., . 0.00 , . . . . . . .  Stationary Source . Program. 

Sale of Reformulated Consumer Products . . . .. . . . . . . . . . VA .. . . . . . . . . . 3.0o . . . .... . . . . . ..... . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. 0.00 . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ., ., . . , Stationary Source. Low-VOC Paints Program .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .  VA, MD . . . 0.17 . . . ... . . . . . ..... . . . . . ... . . . . . . ., 0.00 . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Stationary Source. Auxiliary Power Units on Locomotives . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. VA . . . . . . . . . . . 0.01 .. .. . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . 0.13 . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . Mobile Sources Montgomery County Regional Wind Power Pur- MD . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 0.05 . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .  

. 

Renewable Energy . chase. 

Arlington County Regional Wind Power Purchase . . VA . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. 0.005 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Renewable Energy . Remote Sensing Device Program . . . . . . . . .... ., . . . . . . . . . . . . VA . . .. . . . . . . . No Credit .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .  No Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobile Sources Alternative Fueled Vehicle (AFV) Purchase Pro- VA . . ... . . . . . . No Credit .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . No Credit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. 

Mobile Sources. 

gram . 

Diesel Bus Retrofit Program . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VA . . . . . . . . . . . No Credit . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . No Credit . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Mobile Sources. 

A more detailed analysis of all these 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures can be found in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this 

proposed action. That TSD is included 

in both the hard copy and E-docket for 

this rulemaking. For each voluntary 

emission reduction program measure for 

which the States claimed emission 

reduction credit, the measure was found 

to be quantifiable . The reductions are 

surplus by not being substitutes for 

mandatory, required emission 

reductions . The commitment to 

monitor, assess and timely remedy any 

shortfall from implementation of the 

measures is enforceable and the State 

held accountable . The reductions will 

continue at least for as long as the time 

period in which they are used by this 

SIP demonstration, so they are 

considered permanent . Each measure is 

adequately supported by personnel and 

program resources for implementation. 

The States commit to evaluating each 

program's measures to validate 

estimated credits and to remedy any 

shortfall in a timely manner. 

B. What Limitations Apply to the 

Magnitude of Emissions Reductions 

That Can Be Attributable to Voluntary 

Emission Reduction Program Measures? 

For a variety of reasons, such as the 

innovation involved in voluntary 

emission reduction program measures, 

inexperience in quantifying them, and 

the inability to enforce these measures 

against individual sources, EPA believes 

that at this time it is appropriate to limit 

the amount of emission reductions 

allowed from voluntary emission 

reduction program measures. Initially, 

we set an appropriate limit for 

stationary source voluntary emission 

reduction program measures and for 

mobile source voluntary emission 

reduction program measures each at 3 

percent of needed reductions for ROP, 

RFP, or attainment demonstration 

purposes. (This is not 3 percent of an 

area's total emission inventory, but 3 

percent of the reductions needed to 

achieve the air quality goal such as ROP 

or attainment .) 

The amounts of emission reductions 

claimed from voluntary emission 

reduction program measures in the 

Maryland and Virginia SIP revisions are 

far less than 3 percent of the reduction 

needs. For these voluntary emission 

reduction program measures, the States 

claim no more than 0.2 tons per day 

(TPD) of NOx and 3.2 TPD for VOC 

reductions . To meet the 2002 and 2005 

ROP goals, the plan documents needed 

reductions of over 170 TPD of VOC and 

over 250 TPD of NOx~ To demonstrate 

attainment, the plan documents needed 
76892 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules 

reductions of well over 170 TPD of VOC 

and over 250 TPD of NOx. The 

reductions from voluntary emission 

reduction program measures represent 

less than 0.1 percent (0.2/250) of the 

needed NOx reductions and less than 2 

percent (3 .2/170) of the needed VOC 

reductions . 

C. What Action Is EPA Proposing for the 

Voluntary Emission Reduction Program 

Measures? 

We propose to approve the voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

listed in Table 1 of this document as 

revisions to the Maryland and Virginia 

SIPs . All of these measures can be 

expected to have some beneficial effect 

on air quality by reducing emissions. 

Additionally, for those voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

for which the States quantified 

reductions EPA is proposing to approve 

emission reduction credit towards ROP 

and/or the attainment demonstration for 

the Washington area in the amounts 

shown in Table 2 . 

TABLE 2.-EMISSION REDUCTIONS CREDITABLE FROM VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM MEASURES FOR THE 

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, DC AREA 

Measure State VOC TPD NOx TPD Implementation 

date 

Gas Can Replacement Program 

Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning Commission, MD .. . . . . . . . 0.0027 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4/2005 Prince George's County . 

Montgomery County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 0.00088 . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12/2004 Prince George's County . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 0.00231 . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/2004 

Maryland totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 0.00589 0.00 

Falrfax County . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . VA . . . . . .. . . 0.00277 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5/2005 City of Fairfax . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 0.00138 . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/2004 City of Fairfax Contractors . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . 0.00060 . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7/2004 Prince William County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 0.0009 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 5/2005 Arlington County .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . 0.0021 . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 5/2005 

Virginia totals . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.005657 . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . .. . 0.00 . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 

Total Area-wide Reduction--Gas Can Replacement Program . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 0.01 0.00 

Sale of Reformulated Consumer Products . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ., .,., VA . . .. . . . . . 3.00 0.00 1/2005 

Low-VOC Paints Program 

Prince George's County . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . MD .. . . . . . . . 0.002 . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . 5/2005 Maryland National Capital Parks & Planning Commission, . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 0.006 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 12/2003 Prince George's County . 

MDOT Traffic Marking Coatings . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 0.149 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 12J2003 

Maryland totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 0.157 0.00 

Virginia totals-Fairfax County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . VA . . . . . . .. 0.017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . 4/2004 

Total Area-wide Reduction-Low-VOC Paints Program . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . 0.174 0.00 

Montgomery County Regional Wind Power Purchase . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ., . . .. MD . . . . . . . . 0.00 0.05 12/2004 

Auxiliary Power Units on Locomotives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . VA . . . . .. . . . 0.01 0.13 3/2004 

Arlington County Regional Wind Power Purchase . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . I VA . . . . . . . . 0.00 0.005 5/2005 

EPA approval of these voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

for which credit is sought will obligate 

the States to monitor and remedy any 

shortfalls in reductions in accordance 

with their commitments to do so . 

Under applicable EPA guidance and 

policy, for those non-regulatory 

voluntary measures for which States 

request approval but claim no reduction 

credits prospectively, the States may 

subsequently amend their SIPs with 

revisions documenting any emission 

reduction credits actually achieved. 

EPA would evaluate such revisions in 

accordance with applicable statute and 

regulations applicable to 

implementation of the standard for 

which reduction credit is sought . 

For those non-regulatory voluntary 

measures for which the Commonwealth 

of Virginia's February 25, 2004 SIP 

submittal did not quantify or request 

any emission reductions (i.e., the 

Remote Sensing Device Program, the 

Alternative Fueled Vehicle (AFV) 

Purchase Program, and the Diesel Bus 

Retrofit Program), EPA is not proposing 

to approve reduction credit towards the 

ROP plan and attainment demonstration 

at this time . However approval of these 

measures into the Virginia SIP will still 

obligate the Commonwealth to monitor 

their effectiveness . The 

Commonwealth's commitment included 

a description of how verification that 

the number of vehicles to be retrofitted 

or to be purchased were actually 

retrofitted and purchased . A "shortfall" 

would then be measured not in terms of 

emission reductions but in terms of 

vehicles not retrofitted or not 

purchased, or, may be measured by 

revising the SIP to quantify the shortfall 

in terms of emission reductions . 

EPA believes approval of these 

measures will strengthen the SIP even 

where no credit is sought at this time . 

Some of these measures may also have 

other air quality benefits beyond 

attainment of the 1-hour and 8-hour 
Federal Register/Vol . 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules 

ozone NAAQS such as reduction of fine 

particulate matter. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action . 

III. Proposed Action 

A. Maryland 

EPA's review of this material 

indicates that Maryland's February 19, 

2004 SIP submittal of non-regulatory 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures for the Washington area meet 

the applicable requirements of EPA 

guidance and policy for approval . EPA 

is proposing to approve the following 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures into the Maryland SIP: 

Montgomery County Regional Wind 

Power Purchase, Low-VOC Paints 

Program and Gas Can Replacement 

Program. Specifically, EPA is proposing 

to approve those measures found in 

section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" 

of the document entitled "Plan to 

Improve Air Quality in the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Region, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 'Severe Area 

SIP' Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2002 end 2005 ; Revision to 1990 Base 

Year Emissions; and Severe Area 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area" (dated February 19, 2004) and 

Appendix J to this plan . This February 

19, 2004 document and its Appendix J 

were submitted to EPA by Maryland on 

February 19, 2004. EPA is also 

proposing to credit the Maryland SIP 

with the emission reductions for these 

measures shown in Table 2 of this 

document for the Washington area . 

B. Virginia 

EPA's review of this material 

indicates that Virginia's February 25, 

2004 SIP submittal of non-regulatory 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures for the Washington area meet 

the applicable requirements of EPA 

guidance and policy for approval . EPA 

is proposing to approve the following 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures into the Virginia SIP: LowVOC Paints Program, Sale of 

Reformulated Consumer Products, Gas 

Can Replacement Program, Remote 

Sensing Device Program, Arlington 

County Regional Wind Power Purchase, 

Auxiliary Power Units on Locomotives, 

Alternative Fueled Vehicle (AFV) 

Purchase Program and Diesel Bus 

Retrofit Program. Specifically, EPA is 

proposing to approve those measures 

found in section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary 

Bundle" of the document entitled "Plan 

to Improve Air Quality in the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 'Severe Area 

SIP' Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2002 and 2005; Revision to 1990 Base 

Year Emissions; and Severe Area 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area" (dated February 19, 2004) and 

Appendix J to this plan. This February 

19, 2004 document and its Appendix J 

were submitted to EPA by Virginia on 

February 25, 2004 . EPA is also 

proposing to credit the Virginia SIP with 

the emission reductions shown in Table 

2 of this document for the Washington 

area . 

IV . 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 (5 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. 104-1) . 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 30, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

76893 

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 

Maryland and Virginia voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

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, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: December 14, 2004 . 

Donald S . Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region 111. 

[FR Doc. 04-28090 Filed 12-22-04; 8 :45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560so-v 
Federal Registe r / Vol. 70, No. 91/Thurs day, May 12, 2005/Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE MARYLAND SIP-Continued 

Code of Maryland 

Administrative Re ulations (COMA 11 citation 

Title/subject 

26.11.33.04 . ... . . . . .. . . . . . General Standard-VOC Content Limits .. . . . . . .. . . . . . 

26 .11.33.05 ... . . . . .. . . . . . . VOC Content Limits . . . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .., . . .. .. . . . ... . . . , 

26 .11 .33.06 .. . . . . ... . . . . . . Most Restrictive VOC Limit . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . ., ... ., . . .... . .  

26 .11 .33.07 . . . . . . .. . . . . ... Painting Restrictions . . . .. .. . . . . . ... .. . . . .., . . . . . .. . . . ., . , 

26 .11 .33.08 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Thinning . .... . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . 

26.11 .33.09 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Rust Preventive Coatings . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . ..... . . . . . ., . . . .. ., 

26.11 .33.10 . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . Coatings Not Listed in Regulation .05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 

26.11 .33.11 . . . . ... . . . . .. . . Lacquers . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . ... . . 

26.11.33.12 . . ., .. . ., ... . . . Container Labeling Requirements . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . 

26.11.33.13 . . . .. . . . .. . . . . Reporting Requirements .... . . . . . . ... . . . ..... . . . . ., . . . . . .. . . . . . 

26.11.33.14 . . .. . . . . ... . . . . Compliance Provisions and Test Methods . . .... . . . . . 

. . * . . 

[FR Doc. 05-9314 Filed 5-11-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-Go-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R03-0AR-2004-MD-0001 ; R03-OAR2004-VA-0005 ; FRL 7909-9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans ; 

Maryland and Virginia; Non-Regulatory 

Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Program Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Maryland and 

by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

These revisions establish a number of 

non-regulatory measures for which 

Maryland and Virginia seek SIP credit 

State effective 

date 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3129/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

3/29/04 

24987 

Additional explanation/ 

EPA approval date citation at 40 CFR 

52.1100 

5/12J05 (Insert page 

number where the 

document begins). 

5/12/05 [insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12/05 [insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5112/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12105 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins). 

5/12/05 [insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

511?J05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12105 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12/05 [insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12l05 [insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

5/12/05 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins]. 

in rate-of-progress and attainment 

planning for the Metropolitan 

Washington, DC 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (the Washington 

area) . The intended effect of this action 

is to approve SIP revisions submitted by 

Maryland and Virginia which establish 

certain non-regulatory measures. The 

non-regulatory measures include use of 

low-or-no-volatile organic compound 

(VOC) content paints by certain State 

and local government agencies ; 

auxiliary power units on locomotives ; 

sale of reformulated consumer products 

in the Northern Virginia area; 

accelerated retirement of poitable fuel 

containers by certain State and local 

government agencies ; and, renewable 

energy measures (wind-power 

purchases by certain local government 

agencies) . 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

Tune 13, 2005 . 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for each of the SIP revisions 

subject to this action under Regional 

Material in EDocket (RME) m Numbers 

R03-0AR-2004-MD-0001 and R03-

OAR-2004-VA-0005 . All documents in 

the docket are listed in the RME index 

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

Once In the system, select "quick 

search," then key in the appropriate 

RME identification number. Although 

listed in the electronic docket, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e ., confidential business information 

(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 for public inspection 

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 Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230; and the Virginia . 
24988 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

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 .chrisfophezOepa .gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I . Background 

On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76889), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the State of 

Maryland and for the Commonwealth of 

Virginia . The NPR proposed approval of 

non-regulatory measures that include 

use of low-or-no-VOC content paints by 

certain State and local government 

agencies ; auxiliary power units on 

locomotives; sale of reformulated 

consumer products in the Northern 

Virginia area ; accelerated retirement of 

portable fuel containers by certain State 

and local government agencies; and, 

renewable energy measures (windpower purchases by certain local 

government agencies). On February 19, 

2004 and February 25, 2004, 

respectively, the Maryland Department 

of the Environment ME) and the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VA DEQ) each submitted the 

formal revisions to their SIPs. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The States submitted program 

descriptions that projected VOC and 

nitrogen oxides (NOx) tons per day 

(TPD) emission reductions attributable 

to each specific measure. Those 

estimates are provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1 .-EMISSION REDUCTIONS CREDITABLE FROM VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION PROGRAM MEASURES FOR THE 

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON DC AREA 

Measure State VOC Imple m tation 

TPD TPD 

d a~ 

Gas Can Replacement Program: 

Maryland National Capital Parks 8 Planning Commission, Prince George's County . . ... . . MD .. . . . . 0.0027 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 4/2005 Montgomery County . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . . . . .... . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . .... . . . . .. . . . ... . . . ... . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . ' . . . . . . .. . . . . 0.00088 . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1212004 Prince George s County . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 0.00231 1/2004 

Maryland totals . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . ... ... . . . ... . . .. .. . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . 0.00589 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 

Fairfax County . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ..... . . ... . . . . . City of Falrfax . . .. . . . . . ... . 

VA . . . . . . 0.00277 . . . ... . . . . . . . 5/2005 

. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. ... . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . .. 

City of Fairfax Contractors . . . . . .... . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 

..... . . . . . .. 

. .... . . . . . .. 

0.00138 

0.00060 

. ...:. . . . ... . . 

. .. . . . . . . ... . 

7/2004 

7/2004 Prince William County . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . .. 0 .00090 

. 

. ... . . . . . ... . . 5/2005 Arlington County . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 0.00210 5/2005 

Virginia totals ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... . . .... . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . ... .. . . . . . . .. .. 0.00565 0.00 . . . . . . .... . . .. . . . .. . . .... . . . 

Total Maryland and Virginia Area-wlde Reductlons-{'aas Cart Replacement Program .. ., . . . ... . 0.01 0 00 (Rounded). 

. . . .. . . . .. , . ., . . .., .,. 

Sale of Reformulated Consumer Products .... . . . . . .. . . . . . ..., . .  ,.. ,.. . ., VA . . . . . 3.00 0.00 1/2005 

Low-VOC Paints Program: 

Prince George's County . . . .... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .... . . . ... .. . . . .... . . . .. .. . . .... . . .. . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . .... . . .... . . . .... . . . MD .. . . . . 0.002 . . . . . . . . . . ... 5/2005 Maryland National Capital Parks 8 Planning Commission, Prince George's County ... . . . . . . . . .... . ., . 0.006 . . . ... ., . . . ... 12/2003 MOOT Traffic Marking Coatings . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 0.149 . . . . .. . . . . . .. . 12/2003 

Maryland totals . . . . . . ... . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . ..... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 0.157 0.00 . . . .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . 

Virginia totals-Fairfax County . . . . . . . ... .. . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . ... . . . . .... VA . ... .. 0.017 4/2004 

Total Maryland and Virginia Area-wide Reductlon-Low-VOC Paints Program (Rounded) .. . . . . . . . . .,. .. 0.17 0.00 . .., . . . ., . . . .  , . ., .  

Montgomery County Regional Wind Power Purchase ... . . . . .. . . . . ... ., .,.. .  MD . .. . . . 0.00 0.05 12/2004 Auxiliary Power Unite on Locomotives . . . . . . ... . . . . . .... . . . . . ...,.. , VA . . . . . . 0.01 0.13 3/2004 Arlington County Regional Wind Power Purchase . . ..... . . ., .... . . . . .  , .,.  , VA . . . . . . 0.00 0.00 5/2005 

A more detailed analysis of all these 

voluntary emission reduction program . 

measures can be found in the Technical 

Support Document (TSD) for this action . 

That TSD is included in both the hard 

copy and E-docket for this rulemaking . 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virgina. 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) "privilege" for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for'which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia's 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations . Virginia's Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10 .1-1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently'of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 91/Thursday, May 12, 2005/Rules and Regulations 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information "required 

by law," including documents and 

information "required by Federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval," since 

Virginia must "enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts * * *." The 

opinion concludes that "[r)egarding 

section 10.1-1198, therefore, documents 

or other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval." 

Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10 .1-1199, provides that "[t)o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law," any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General's January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since "no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity," 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia's Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

Clean Air Act, including, for example, 

sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 

enforce the requirements or prohibitions 

of the state plan, independently of any 

state enforcement effort . In addition, 

citizen enforcement under section 304 

of the Clean Air Act is likewise 

unaffected by this, or any, state audit 

privilege or immunity law. 

Other specific requirements of the 

bundle of voluntary emission reduction 

program measures and the rationale for 

EPA's proposed action are explained in 

the NPR and will not be restated here . 

IV . Public Comment 

We received four sets of comments via 

letter and/or electronically during the 

public comment period . None of the 

comments were adverse to our proposed 

approval. 

Three of the letters strongly supported 

the proposed approval of the 

nonregulatory measures in the Maryland 

and Virginia SIP revisions. Two of these 

letters observed that there is nothing 

voluntary about the State commitments 

in these SIP revisions even though these 

measures are titled "voluntary 

measures" by EPA. EPA agrees that the 

observation made in the comments is 

correct and reiterates EPA's policy 

regarding such measures. EPA's 

"voluntary measures" policies are to 

cover those emissions reduction 

strategies that are undertaken but are 

not made enforceable against the source 

through a traditional regulatory process 

or those strategies which are new or 

innovative . However, EPA ensures that 

the measures are enforceable against the 

state by requiring the state to commit to 

monitor the implementation and 

effectiveness of the measure and, where 

a reduction credit is sought by the SIP, 

to make-up any shortfall in emissions 

reductions. 

The fourth letter was not opposed or 

adverse to the proposed action but 

rather asserted that there was a 

typographical error with regards to the 

emission reduction credit claimed by 

the Commonwealth of Virginia for the 

Arlington County wind power purchase 

measure. The comment letter asserts 

that the SIP sought no reduction credit 

from the measure. EPA has reexamined 

the SIP revision submitted by Virginia 

and agrees that EPA mistakenly 

proposed to credit the Arlington County 

wind power purchase measure with 

emission reduction credit. On page 7-78 

of section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary 

Bundle" of the document entitled "Plan 

to Improve Air Quality in the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) "Severe Area 

SIP" Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2002 and 2005 ; Revision to 1990 Base 

Year Emissions; and Severe Area 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area" (dated February 19, 2004) in 

Virginia's February 25, 2004 SIP 

revision plainly states that "credits will 

not be awarded for purchases in 

Virginia jurisdictions." 

24989 

Table 1 of this document reflects this 

change from Table 2 of the NPR. 

V. Final Action 

A. State of Maryland 

EPA's review of this material 

indicates that Maryland's February 19, 

2004 SIP submittal of non-regulatory 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures for the Washington area meet 

the applicable requirements of EPA 

guidance and policy for approval . EPA 

is approving the following voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

into the Maryland SIP: Montgomery 

County Regional Wind Power Purchase, 

Low-VOC Paints Program, and Gas Can 

Replacement Program. Specifically, EPA 

is approving those measures found in 

section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" 

of the document entitled "Plan to 

Improve Air Quality in the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Region, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) "Severe Area 

SIP" Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2002 and 2005 ; Revision to 1990 Base 

Year Emissions; and Severe Area 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area" (dated February 19, 2004) and 

Appendix J to this plan. This February 

19, 2004 document and its Appendix J 

were submitted to EPA by Maryland on 

February 19, 2004 . EPA is crediting the 

Maryland SIP with the emission 

reductions for these measures shown in 

Table 2 of this document for the 

Washington area . 

B. Commonwealth of Virginia 

EPA's review of this material 

indicates that Virginia's February 25, 

2004 SIP submittal of non-regulatory 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures for the Washington area meet 

the applicable requirements of EPA 

guidance and policy for approval . EPA 

is approving the following voluntary 

emission reduction program measures 

into the Virginia SIP: Low-VOC Paints 

Program, Sale of Reformulated 

Consumer Products, Gas Can 

Replacement Program, Remote Sensing 

Device Program, Arlington County 

Regional Wind Power Purchase, 

Auxiliary Power Units on Locomotives, 

Alternative Fueled Vehicle (AFV) 

Purchase Program, and Diesel Bus 

Retrofit Program. Specifically, EPA is 

approving those measures found in 

section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" 

of the document entitled "Plan to 

Improve Air Quality in the Washington, 

DC-MD-VA Region, State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) "Severe Area 

SIP" Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 

2002 and 2005 ; Revision to 1990 Base 

Year Emissions; and Severe Area 
24990 Federal Register/Vol . 70, No. 91/Thursday, May 12, 2005/Rules and Regulations 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Washington DC-MD-VA Nonattainment 

Area" (dated February 19, 2004) and 

Appendix J to this plan. This February 

19, 2004 document and its Appendix J 

were submitted to EPA by Virginia on 

February 25, 2004 . EPA is crediting the 

Virginia SIP with the emission 

reductions shown in Table 2 of this 

document for the Washington area . 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S .C . 601 et seq.) . Because this 

rule approves 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 rule also does not 

have tribal implications because it will 

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). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

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). This action merely 

approves 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 rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

"Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

si gnificant. 

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. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S .C . 3501 et seq.) . 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S .C, 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States, EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S . Senate, 

Applicable geographic area 

Non-Regulatory Voluntary Washington, DC severe 1-

Emission Reduction Program. hour ozone nonattainment 

area . 

State submittal date 

the U.S . House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. This rule is not a 

"major rule" as defined by 5 U.S .C . 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 11, 2005 . 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action . This action to 

approve Maryland and Virginia 

voluntary emission reduction program 

measures may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements . 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 2, 2005 . 

Donald S. Welsh, 

Regional Administrator, Region If1. 

N 40 CFR part 52 Is amended as follows : 

PART 52-[AMENDED] 

n 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart V-Maryland 

0 2. In §52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

the Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Program at the end of the table 

to read as follows: 

§52.1070 Identification of plan. 

(e) .* . 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

2J19/04 5/1TJ05 [Insert page number The nonregulatory measures 

where the document begins]. found in section 7.6 and Appendix J of the plan . 
Federal Registe r / Vol . 70, No. 91/Thursday, May 12, 2005/Rules and Regulations 

Subpart VV-Vlrglnla 

a 3 . In §52 .2420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision 

Non-Regulatory Voluntary Washington, DC severe 1-

Emission Reduction Program. hour ozone nonattalnment 

area. 

[FR Doe. 05-9315 Filed 5-11-05; 8 :45 am] 

BILLING CODE BGBO-6D-P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[WA-01-003 ; FRL-7906-3] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Spokane Carbon 

Monoxide Attainment Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rnle . 

Additional explanation 

2/25/2004 5/12/05 [Insert page number The nonregulatory measures 

where the document begins]. found in section 7.6 and Appendix J of the plan . 

0130; e-mail address: 

robinson .connie@epa.gov. 

State submittal date EPA approval date 

G. The conformity budget under 

section 176(c)(2)(A) of the Act and 

§ 93 .118 of the transportation 

conformity rule (40 CFR part 93, subpart 

A), 

H. Administrative Order No. DE 

O3AQIS-3285 and Order No. DE 

01AQIS-3285, Amendment HI relating 

to Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 

Corporation, Mead Works. 

We are also approving a SE' revision 

submitted on September 26, 2001, to 

two sections of Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) 173-422, 

Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection, to 

provide an inspection schedule for 

motor vehicles between 5 and 25 years 

old. 

A Technical Support Document on 

file at the EPA Region 10 office contains 

a detailed analysis and rationale in 

support of the Spokane Serious Area 

Carbon Monoxide Plan and the WAC 

revisions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

"we," "us," or "our" is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

1. Background Information 

On March 8, 2005, EPA published in 

the Federal Register, a proposal to 

approve the Spokane, Washington CO 

serious Attainment Plan, revisions to 

the Washington State Inspection and 

Maintenance (I/M) Program, and certain 

source-specific SIP revisions relating to 

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 

Corporation. See 70 FR 11179. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving State II. Public Comments on the Proposed Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions Action submitted to EPA by the State of 

Washington that consist of A Plan for EPA provided a 30-day review and 

Attaining Carbon Monoxide (CO) comment period and solicited 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards comments on our proposal published in 

(NAAQS) in the Spokane Serious CO 

Nonattainment Area and changes to the 

Washington State Inspection and 

Maintenance Program. 

The EPA is also approving certain 

source-specific SIP revisions relating to 

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical 

Corporation of Spokane. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 13, 2005 . 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket I.D . 

No. WA-01-003 . Publicly available 

docket materials are available in hard 

copy at the Office of Air, Waste, and 

Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, .1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, 

Washington 98101. This Docket Facility 

is open from 8:30 a.m .-4 p.m  Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays . The Docket telephone number 

is(206)553-4273. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Connie Robinson, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics (OAWT-107), EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101; telephone number: 

(206) 553-1086 ; fax number: 206-553- 

the Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission §52.2420 Identification of plan. 

Reduction Program at the end of the table - " * * + 

to read as follows : 

24991 

Applicable geographic area 

the March e, 2005, Federal Register . No 

comments were received on the 

proposed rulemaking . EPA is now 

taking final action on the SIP revisions 

consistent with the published proposal . 

III. Final Action 

In this action, the EPA is approving 

revisions to the Washington State 

Implementation Plan . Specifically, we 

are approving the following elements of 

the Spokane CO Attainment Plan, 

submitted on September 20, 2001 and 

November 22, 2004 : 

A. Procedural requirements, under 

section 110(a)(2) of the Act; 

B. Base year emission inventory, 

under sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) 

and periodic inventories under 187(a)(5) 

of the Act; 

C. Attainment demonstration, under 

section 187(a)(7) of the Act; 

D. The TCM program under 

187(b)(2)182(d)(1) and 108(f)(1)(A) of 

the Act; ' 

E. VMT forecasts under section 

187(a)(2)(A) of the Act; 

F. Contingency measures under 

section 187(a)(3) of the Act; 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this 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 approves 

State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S .C . 601 et seq.) . Because this 

rule approves 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