J~ FS yJ C ~ ~ \\// 0 lit A111ir 'r PROZ~G~ _ Z~~~lq~ 

# AUG 16 2005

OFFICE OF AIRANDRADIATION 

## MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM : Guidance on Incorporating Bundled Measures in a S te Implementation Plan Office ofAir Quality PI Stephen D

. Page, Director

Office ofTransportation and Air Qu MargoTsirigotis Oge, Director TO : AirDivision Directors Attached is a final document that provides guidance to States and local areas on State implementation plan (SIP) credit froma group, or "bundle," ofpollution control measures or strategies considered in the aggregate. The guidance addresses an issue raised by States at the 2004Air Innovations Conference and responds to recommendation number 3.1 fromthe Air Quality Management Workgroup which was subsequently endorsed by the CleanAir Act Advisory Committee. It has beenjointly developed by the Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards and the Office ofTransportation 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 fromadopting 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 mayhave 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" themin 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 ofthe 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 PROTECTIONAGENCY 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." Ifyour staff have any questions regarding this guidance, please have them contact David Solomon at (919) 541-5375. Attachment cc: Lydia Wegman David Solomon Air ProgramManagers 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 ofAir and Radiation August 2005

Environmental Protection Agency

. JN~tED ST,qT~s 

# INCORPORATING BUNDLED MEASURES INA Z~Q o2 STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)
'Qt PROSE

# INCORPORATING BUNDLED MEASURES INA

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (SIP)

Prepared by the Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards U .S. Environmental Protection Agency

and Transportation and Regional Programs Division Office ofTransportation 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 ofair 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 EPApolicies and guidance? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7. Whom

should you contact about Federal approval of bundled measures? . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 . Whom

should you contact ifyou 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 SIPapproval under this policy?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 14. What should a State do ifthe evaluation reveals a shortfall between predicted and actual emissions reductions froma 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 SIPhave more than one bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 21 . How

should you calculate the emissions reductions froma bundle of measures? . . 15 22. How

should a State evaluate the effectiveness ofa bundle of measures? . . . . . . . . . 17 23. What is the timing ofevaluation 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 ofa bundle of measures be considered?
. . . . . . . . . 20 Appendix A

: SIP COMPLETENESS ANDAPPROVAL PROCESS FOR BUNDLED MEASURES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 Appendix B: BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOREMISSIONS REDUCTIONS MEASURES

TO RECEIVE FEDERAL APPROVAL INASIP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

## Appendix C : POTENTIAL AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Appendix D

: HOW TOCALCULATE THE MAXIMUM EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ALLOWED FORBUNDLED MEASURES INASIP . . . . . . . 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 CleanAir 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 ofpollutant reduction strategies to attain or maintain the NAAQS. However, States are often either discouraged fromadopting 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 frominnovative approaches to improving air quality by providing provisional pollution reduction credit up-front towards achievement ofattainment, RFP, ROP or maintenance requirements froma 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" themin 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 SIPapproval, 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 CAAand implementing regulations at 40 CFRpart 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 EPAand State decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches for approval of SIP measures that differ fromthis guidance where appropriate and consistent with applicable law . Any final decisions by EPAregarding a particular SIPmeasure will only be made based on the statute and regulations in the context of EPAnotice-and-comment rulemaking on a submitted SIP revision. Therefore, interested parties

## may raise questions and objections about the substance ofthis guidance and appropriateness of

its application to a particular situation; EPAwill, 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 ofthis guidance document . Finally, this document does not prejudice any future final EPA decision regarding approval ofany 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, ROPor 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 ofemissions 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

.

' Avoluntary 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. Astationary source measure can be both a voluntary and an emerging measure. 2Traditional emissions reductions measures differ fromvoluntary 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 CAAAmendments provide authority for Tribes to implement CAA programs and instructed EPAto adopt regulations so that eligible Tribes may manage their own EPA-approved air pollution control programs under the CAA . The 1998Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) implements the provisions ofsection 301(d) of the CAAto authorize eligible Tribes to develop their own tribal programs. Under the TAR, a Tribe may be approved by EPAto be eligible to be treated in the same manner as a State for one or more CAAprograms. Such a programmay 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 TARmakes 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 ofa TIP, it would be required to meet the evaluation timeframes identified in this guidance. 6 . What are other relevant EPA policies and guidance? The EPAhas 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 fromtrucks, 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 fromElectric 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 CFRpart 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 ofsource 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' sourceZ source program measure measure measure measure A . "ImprovingAir 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 fromElectric Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures" 4 E. Incorporating Bundled Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP)



## 3 "Stationary source" includes "area sources." 4An 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 EPARegional Office during the SIP development process. 8 . Whom

should you contact ifyou 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 EPARegional 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 ofAir 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 ofTransportation 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 ofTransportation 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 theirprecursors, 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 fromthe source category, if not individual sources, would need to be explicitly identified in the applicable SIPinventory.) C . Certain stationary sources that indirectly affect emissions or ambient air concentrations ofcriteria 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 fromtrucks, 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 ofarriving 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 Cfor 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 EPAhas 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, EPAbelieves that it needs to encourage innovative approaches to generating emissions reductions. Consequently, EPAbelieves that it is appropriate and consistent with the CAAto allowa small percentage of the total emissions reductions needed to satisfy ROP, RFP, attainment, and maintenance requirements to come fromprograms 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 CAArequirements are achieved. This includes an enforceable SIP commitment, under timeframes discussed below, to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe 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 SIPshortfall quickly by enforceable emissions reductions fromother 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 fromother sources through a SIPrevision.

5 Appendix Bcontains 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 ofvoluntary and emerging measures, EPAbelieves that it is appropriate to limitthe amount ofemissions reductions allowed for approval fromsuch measures. For voluntary and emerging measures covering stationary sources, there is a presumptive limit ofsix percent.' Aseparate limit of three percent applies to voluntary mobile source programs. The result is a nine percent limit on the inclusion ofvoluntary 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, EPAbelieves 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 ofall 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, 6The 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) fromthe projected attainment year inventory, reflecting the reductions from all currently adopted Federal/State regulations. The difference is the amount ofadditional reductions needed to meet the statutory requirement
. Emission reductions fromnontraditional 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 ofthe CAAlimits the credit States can take for using dispersion techniques, that include episodic and supplemental controls on emissions fromstationary sources that vary based on atmospheric or meteorological conditions. The EPA's regulations implement section 123 at 40 CFRsections 51 .100, 51 .118, and 51 .119. One of the purposes ofsection 123 is to make sure stationary sources do not rely upon intermittent controls in order to avoid the application offeasible 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 EPAcould 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 EPAbelieves 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 ofcontrol . For example, EPA has formally determined that the use of smoke management in agriculture and silviculture practices, and episodic curtailment ofresidential wood combustion, are not dispersion techniques limited by section 123. The use ofdust suppressants at stationary sources is not a dispersion technique, since these controls are triggered by the rate ofdust 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 SIPunder the CAA under certain circumstances. For example, an ozone nonattainment area maywant to credit an episodic mobile measure in the photochemical modeling for its attainment demonstration. C . Limitations on uses The EPAbelieves that a State can claimemissions reductions in its SIPfromemerging and voluntary programs for purposes ofdemonstrating 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 fromon-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 SIPapproval under this policy? AState would submit a SIPto EPAthat : A . Identifies and describes each measure in abundle, including the implementation schedule for each measure in the bundle; B . Contains projections ofemissions or pollutant reductions attributable to each individual measure in the bundle and the sumofall 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 ofthe relevant best available science supporting the measure (see EPApolicy 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 SIPrevision. See Appendix Afor 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 froma 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) ofa shortfall (i .e., projected pollutant reductions froma bundle were not or will not be achieved), the State will quickly correct the problem by providing enforceable emissions reductions fromother 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 fromother sources through a SIPrevision. 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 ofwhen the shortfall is discovered. However, if the emissions reductions froma measure are necessary to show

attainment, maintenance or ROP, the timeframe to correct a shortfall cannot exceed the statutory attainment, maintenance or ROPmilestone 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 ofTCM substitution mechanisms, which can be found at: http://www

.epa. ovg /otaq/transp/conform/sip-tcm-sub .pdf. ATCM 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 EPAto conduct noticeand-comment rulemaking on individual substitutions
. In cases where a State has a TCM substitution mechanismin its SIP, an individual TCM measures within a SIPbundle 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 2004guidance. 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 CFRpart 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 fromfuture 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 SIPcredit is obtained for an on-road mobile source measure that is bundled and included in the SIP's budget, this does not preclude it fromalso 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 CFR93.101 as any measure that is specifically identified and committed to in an approved SIPthat is either one of the types listed in CAAsection 108 or any other measure for the purpose of improving air quality by reducing likely mean implementation in the spring of 2020for 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 ofTCMs. 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 froma conforming plan and transportation improvement programmust provide for the timely implementation of SIPTCMs 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 ofa SIP bundle, so that air quality and transportation agencies can ensure timely implementation ofany approved SIP TCMs in future conformity determinations . 17. How

long does this policy last? The EPAcurrently plans to evaluate the effect ofthis 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 uponto 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 arejust 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-performwhile 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 ofall proposed energy efficiency/renewable energy measures rather than addressing themindividually. 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 froma technical or resource perspective. Abundle 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 frombeing bundled with smaller measures promotingvoluntary energy conservation, with the overall goal being reduced emissions frompower generation. Traditional emissions reductions measures may also be included in a bundle, but should be limited to measures that individually are toosmall-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 ofdifferent strategies and source types) or part ofa package targeting a specific area or objective (such as, heat island mitigation, social marketing or voluntary programs) . Abundle 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 ofsuccess of the bundle as a whole. Again, given the timely implementation ofTCMs 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 Ccontains a listing ofcertain types ofmeasures 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 fromboth 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 froma bundle of measures? To reflect the fact that the amount of reductions resulting froma bundle of measures may be unclear, the emissions reductions froma bundle of measures should be calculated by either: (A) applying an appropriate discount factor to the sumof 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 fromall the individual measures in the bundle. In this case, the discount factor mayvary among the measures. Adiscount factor is not applied 15

## to the bundle of measures in this case as the value ofeach measure has already been

individually discounted. The SIPauthority 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 forthe 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. Ahigh 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 ofuncertainty associated with the bundle achieving the desired results, considering the magnitude ofthe emissions reductions claimed
. Abundle may also include measures that, while expected to help improve air quality, are so minute that they are assigned a value ofzero for the purpose ofquantifying their expected emissions reductions.' Such measures should not be considered quantitatively when calculating the number ofemissions 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 20percent 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 ofall TCMs in an approved SIP, including those that are included in a SIPbundle with a value ofzero emissions reductions. State and local air agencies must consult with State and local transportation agencies when considering the inclusion ofTCMs in a SIP submission (40 CFR93.105) . 16

## substantialjustification 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 ofemissions reductions are not being achieved. In the SIP submittal, the State needs to develop and include specific programevaluation 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 programsubmitted as part ofa 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 programeffectiveness, particularly for those measures utilized in the consumer/retail area. For example, for an ozone action day approach to discourage the use ofVOC-based consumer products (paints, hair spray, etc,) it may be appropriate to use a consumer survey to evaluate the program effectiveness. The actual effect ofsome 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 ofroofs, roads, and pavement . Although these are not direct measures of ozone reduction, they are necessary actions to implement a HIRstrategy and can be directly measured and compared to the original assumptions in the HIRstrategy and modeling. At the same time, the HIRmodeling 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 maywish 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 fromsuch 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 fromother

measures that may or may not have achieved anticipated reductions. Where the actual emissions reductions achieved fromthe 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 ofvoluntary and emerging measures. However, where the emissions reductions demonstrated through the evaluation (or projected improvement in air quality fromthe bundle) is less thanthe amount originally estimated, the amount ofcredit 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 EPApolicy 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. Asummary 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 ofan 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 aparticular 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 2years before the RFP, ROPor 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 ofa voluntary stationary source measure no later than 18 months after putting the measure in place (Iyear 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 6months, the timeframe may be 6months to run the programand 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 programat least every 3 years. C . Evaluating individual voluntary mobile source measures States that usevoluntary mobile source measures must commit to evaluating their measures. These enforceable commitments would describe how they plan to evaluate program implementation and report on programresults 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 fromthe control measures supporting the campaign. Within 24 months of the campaign's implementation, a web-based survey tool which has been developed by EPAor 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 fromthis voluntary programalong with updated emissions reductions. (See www .bwc.gov for Commuter Model and webbased tool) . AState project that reduces idling fromheavy duty trucks by implementing 19

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

owner ofthe 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 programat 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, EPAbelieves 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 ofsources or population covered, will likely affect the quantity ofemissions reductions a measure will achieve in any given location
. This is especially true for small-scale communitybased measures, which are ofthe 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 ofappropriate 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 ofa 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 ofthe bundle provide certain co-benefits (such as public health, economic or non-air-quality environmental benefits), broader support fromthe 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 fromthe exercise, money saved in reduced fuel use and reduced vehicle maintenance costs. As another example, in addition to reducing air emissions fromelectric 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.

## APPENDIXA

SIP COMPLETENESS ANDAPPROVAL 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 ofemissions 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 fromthe 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 ofadoption, as well as the effective date ofeach measure, ifthis information is not already included for each measure. - evidence that each measure is consistent with the provisions of CAAsection 110(a)(2)(E) . - a copy ofeach measure, indicating the changes made to the existing approved SIP where applicable. The State programand 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 ofeach 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 ofthe proposed changes consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication ofthis 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 environmentaljustice 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 ofthe measure in consultation with appropriate stakeholders - community (including communities of concern), industry, academia, environmentalists and regulators . Forprograms 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 ofsuch SIP measures according to the federal transportation conformity regulation (40 CFR93.105(b)) and the State's conformity SIP (required by 40 CFR51 .390) . The State prepares documentation to support the rule
. The State submits the rule and supporting documentation to the applicable EPA Regional Office. The EPARegional Office reviews the SIP submittal for completeness and decides whether the rule submittal is complete. Ifthe EPARegional Office considers the SIPsubmittal 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 EPAproposes the rule as a SIPrevision in the Federal Register and solicits comments on the rule fromthe public. Based on the public's comments, EPA may require that the State make changes in the rule, prior to final approval . The EPApublishes the final approval of the (original or modified) rule in the Federal Register . The EPARegions 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 mayprovide 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 fromcontrol measures must be: A . Surplus - The definition ofsurplus 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 RFPrequirement 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 claimemissions reductions that are already assumed in the existing SIP, or that result fromany other emission reduction or limitation ofa criteria pollutant or precursor that the State is required to have to attain or maintain a NAAQS or satisfy other CAArequirements. In the event that emissions reductions relied on froma 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 EPAmaintain the abilityto 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 EPAmaintains the ability to apply penalties and secure appropriate corrective action fromthe State where applicable and the State maintains the secure appropriate corrective action with respect to portions of the programthat 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) Acomplete 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 ofemissions 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 termthat the credit is granted unless it is replaced by another measure (through a SIPrevision) or the State demonstrates in a SIP revision that the emissions reductions fromthe measure are no longer needed to meet applicable requirements. This applies to voluntary and emerging measures. E. Anti- backsliding - To receive SIP approval ofany emerging measure or voluntary measure that replaces an existing SIPmeasure, the State must demonstrate that the

25

## anti-backsliding requirements ofsection 110 (1) and 193 of the CAAare met" .

F. Adequately Supported - The State must demonstrate that it has adequate funding, personnel, and otherresources to implement the measure on schedule.

1° The EPAhas recently clarified applicable requirements for anti-backsliding for the ozone NAAQS in 40CFRpart 51, subpart X . 26

## APPENDIX C POTENTIAL AIRPOLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES The following table of measures is for illustrative purposes only and provides examples of some of the types of measures States maywish to consider for bundling." The inclusion ofa 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 EPAnotice-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 ofthe 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 ofcontrol measures that Early Action Compact (EAC) areas have implemented may also be a useful resource. Alist of the EACmeasures can be found at : http ://www

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

" Note, the termPM

as used in this table refers to direct PM only in the formof PM-10, PM-2.5 or both, depending on the source type. 27O N O 

### p~ ~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 ~n U 

### o

"C 

# x ~ O U



# ~ C/5 ¢ .

~ Q ", O ~r N O U '~ > > O bl) c} ., S1, +~ ~ bA ~, ~ ~ = O s .., Q ' o ~, +~O ,"C~ V O . . . v~ O ~ ¢, "

" - ~ ~

v~ ,~ ~ .~ c O >, ) ~ O " O '-~ `~.'' > f~ s" y ~ O 'd O > bA 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



# a° ° ° a~ ° a>° ° a ° z z z > z 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 o o v~ ~o o ,0 > o ~ ,.~ Cd Cd N Cd 

### 0 N Cd 

### o

~ cv ry ¢ ~++ N d N ~ N y N N ~ J ~7

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

# d x ~ c) ¢

~ too U

c~d ~' U ~ bA ,~ O y~ 0 rn ~ ~ '^ ' ~

. . . ¢ .~ ~ r~

~a c~n ~ 4--~ ~ 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 7y O 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 ~ '~ ~ ~ a ~+ U ~ N N ~+ ~ ~-+ ~', N ~ sU-~ ~ O 

### U 

# ° a~° ~c



# ° a °a °a

° 9L4 AO 

# z z z z

~ 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) U O a' '" Q ' 4 ; ~ .t", U N c~ to O 'o " U C U W t~ p ~ "a ~ ~ ~ bU ~ cC~

A A 0 C/~ > p ~~'' ~ O~

~ C O .~ U .. ,O'' O O s"' O 'd 

### Cj o Ej o ~ 64 A O ~ ~U g ,~ U N O O '' 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 +-- ~ b v~ 0 ~ y s., "w rn b[) cn :s 71 ~ 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 tb 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 ~- c s 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 . v~ ` ~ O bA C 4r

O 4~ ~ 4~-a O

¢, ~ .~

y.y ~ O ~ s

.. ' ~ v~ ;~ 

## c, >, U) ~ 

## s~. El

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 EL

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

~. o 

# x °' "° ~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 +' ~U o e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~"" 

### 0

o U

~ ct 0 .0 U ~ v ^~' `+~ N 'd >, s-, ' ~ " m C~ N ~ "-, cC ~ O 

# 0 ~ ~ ~. o

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

cn c " N '-o bA Z c U 

### En 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 U y,,~ G4 N +-' " , 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 

## ~ ~ 3 ~'n a. E~ ~

C7 Ln

C7 " ~ ~ ., 

## ,a? v U U ~ a M M

### +r
cd Cl) O t~) O 

# a

~

.., U 

# _

'7 s"'' ° ~y, ° ,_,

~ Q! ~ ° GCC " 

### U o ai 

# 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~ 'r

, -S +, 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 ~

0 4 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 . F; r

~ ; 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 'b 7 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 ~ Wp 1..; 3 O t1' ~ O U O 

### A O O a 

### ~ O ~ 

### ~; ~ 

### 3 ~ U ~ O ~ 

### - O U U

O 

### W u. W a~ a~ ° H a~ ~ M v~ 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 ~:s 0 O 

## U ~



## ! ~ k 

## ° , u ~ r~ . a! rw ~: ~ o ° ~ .a R cn °? 3

w ~ b a ~ a a a w~ O CD

~. U ~ U



### . N 

### bn 4 .r " 

## a E~ ~ o ~ v~

r M

### ~ 3 o o O U o 0 o 0 0 

## a Cd -d
o



## .

° ° to -a o t° ~ 

## Q ., '~ en ~ ~ . 3 ~ 

## tw o ' : C's 0 a 

## C~ o 

## b-d ~ 3 .~

'E ~ i8 0 0 -0 .5 3 C 's °' en . ~ t,, ~ 

## ~ "6 ~. U 0 

## 0 4 .., > ~ 0 'O 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 ~ a 

## .~ 

## ~ + 

## ~ .' .. ~ O ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ' °' ~ ~ 3 ~ a, > 

## :~ o ~

, " 4r 

## O ~ O ~ ," 1?4 ~ O O ~ O U U '~ ' ~ N''" ~ "d ~ ~ O ~n ~ ' ~ . Q O U O Q v~ O cd ~ ,~ v~ +,

0 v~ ~

s~ ~ t3a ~ ~ " '" ~ O k ~ N ~ ~ ~ vi ~ q p ~

~ O U bb ~ ~ , ~ N Q

. ~ ~ O >< N ~ U

O O O ~

bp N `+ , U

.'" s'" c d 'C

U ,-~ 0 N `A O m O V, c~ 0 " + ~ ~" U ' ' . vi ~ " sy V

~ O .S. N O .C U U

;3 s-+ N ~ 'C ,.d ~ U ~ '~ ~ ~2, O O 71 9, 'C O



## ~' a O OO ' .C O P' ' ~ ,~ 0 N 

## ' ' ~ U n . ~

ri' . ~

~ ~ 3 ~ ~ n w~ ~ a ~ ° ~ ~ n .0 ~

WWI 

### o ,, a o 0

~ Z a a 

# a a > O ~

o o o o E~ ~n M

## APPENDIX D

HOW TOCALCULATE THE MAXIMUM EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ALLOWED FOR BUNDLEDMEASURES INASIP The following example isfor 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 1,200tons 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 700tons per day, including the benefits ofall 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- 400tons per day) . Applying the six percent limit on the use ofvoluntary and emerging stationary source measures, the State's attainment demonstration may include up to 18 tons per day fromthese measures (6%

of 300tons per day) . Applying the three percent limit on the use ofvoluntary mobile source measures, the State's attainment demonstration may include up to 9 tons per day fromthese 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 ofall 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 frombundled measures (9%of 300tons per day) . The 27 ton limit applies to the total ofall 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 fromall bundles should not exceed the 27 tons.

## APPENDIX E BUNDLED MEASURES SIP EXAMPLE The following December 23, 2004and May 12, 2005 Federal Register Notices, titled "Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland and Virginia; NonRegulatory Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramMeasures," provide an example of bundled SIP measures.

### Federal Register/Vol

. 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules

Quality Division, 51 NStreet, NE., Washington, DC20002 . FOR FURTHERINFORMATION CONTACT: EllenWentworth, (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 ofColumbia's Approval of VOCEmission Standards for Mobile Equipment Repair and Refinishing in the Metropolitan Washington, DCozone 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 ofthis rule, and ifthat provision maybe severed fromthe remainder of the rule, EPA mayadopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment . Dated: December 14, 2004. Donald S. Welsh, RegionalAdministrator, 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 ProgramMeasures 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 ofportable 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 CleanAirAct (CAA or theAct) . 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 ofthe 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, 1650Arch 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 ofboxed 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 whosedisclosure is restricted by statute . Do not submit information that youconsider to be CBI or otherwise protected through RME, regulations.gov or e-mail, The EPARME and the Federal regulations.gov websites are an "anonymous access" system, which means EPAwill not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If yousend an e-mail comment directly to EPAwithout going through RME or regulations.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 ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit . If EPAcannot 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 ofencryption, and be free ofany 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 notplaced on the Internet andwill be publicly available only in hard copy form . Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RMEor in hard copy during normal business hours at theAir Protection Division, U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 . Copies oftheState submittal are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230, Baltimore, Maryland 21224and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629East Main Street, Richmond,Virginia 23219

. FOR FURTHERINFORMATION 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 ofthe Environment (MDE) and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) both submitted revisions to their SIPs. These SIPrevisions included, amongother things, amendments to the 1990base 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 oftransportation control measures and a suite ofnon-regulatory voluntary emission reduction measures.76890 Federal R egister/Vol . 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules This proposed rule pertains only to the suite ofnon-regulatory voluntary measures. The other portions ofthese SIP revisions are the subjects of will be addressed in separate rulemaking actions. I . Background A. What Are Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramMeasures and EPA's Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramMeasure 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 programmeasures are an alternative to traditional "command and control" approaches, and have the potential to encourage new, untried and costeffective approaches to reduce emissions. Avoluntary emission reduction programmeasure 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 claimas 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 ofa voluntary emission reduction programmeasure could include retail operations agreeing not to sell high emitting VOCproducts during the ozone season, or programs designed to educate consumers or sources about the effects oftheir 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 programmeasures into SIPs. Thefirst such guidance was a October 27, 1997 memorandumfromRichard D . Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, entitled "Guidance on Incorporating Voluntary Mobile Source Emission Reduction Programs in State Implementation Plans (SIPs)," whichwas 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," whichwas 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 andguidance was theAugust 5, 2004 cover memorandum fromBrian McLean, Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, andfrom Stephen D

. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards, entitled "Guidance on SIPCredits for Emission Reductions fromElectricsector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures" that issued the August 2004 document "Guidance on State Implementation Plan (SIP) Credits for Emission Reductions fromElectricsector 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 whichare not necessarily limited to, RACT, BACT, LAER, NSPS or NESHAP limits, or rules such as those for reducing VOCemissions promulgated pursuant to section 183of the Act, or those assumed in a permit (such as offsets), or those needed to demonstrate conformity with the SIP pursuant to 40 CFRpart 93 and section 176 of theAct. EPAbelieves the authority for voluntary emission reduction program measures derives from various provisions ofthe Act including : sections 110 and 172regarding 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 SIPshortfall by providing enforceable emission reductions fromother 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 programmeasures 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. EPAbelieves 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 182and 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 VoluntaryEmission Reduction Programs" of "Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs," United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office ofAir 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 . WhatAre Electric-Sector Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Measures? Another category ofvoluntary 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 ofspecific 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 fromelectricity generation, such as renewable energy projects like wind powered generation. E. What Qualifies forSIPCredit? 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 programmeasures, 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 programimplementation 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 ProgramMeasures 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 VOCreduction (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-VOCPaints 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. Amore detailed analysis ofall 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 programmeasure 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 fromimplementation 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 programresources 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. WhatLimitations Apply to the Magnitude ofEmissions Reductions That Can Be Attributable to Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramMeasures? For a variety of reasons, such as the innovation involved in voluntary emission reduction programmeasures, inexperience in quantifying them, and the inability to enforce these measures against individual sources, EPAbelieves that at this time it is appropriate to limit the amount ofemission reductions allowed fromvoluntary emission reduction programmeasures. Initially, we set an appropriate limit for stationary source voluntary emission reduction program

measures and for mobile source voluntary emission reduction programmeasures 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 .) Theamounts ofemission reductions claimed from

voluntary emission reduction program

measures in the Maryland and Virginia SIPrevisions are far less than 3 percent of the reduction needs . For these voluntary emission reduction programmeasures, theStates claim no more than 0

.2 tons per day (TPD) of NOx and 3 .2 TPDfor VOC reductions. To meet the 2002 and 2005 ROPgoals, the plan documents needed reductions of over 170TPDof VOCand over 250TPDof NOx~ To demonstrate attainment, the plan documents needed76892 Federal Register/V ol . 69, No

. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules reductions ofwell over 170TPDof VOC and over 250TPDof NOx. The reductions from

voluntary emission reduction programmeasures represent less than 0

.1 percent (0

.2/250) ofthe needed NOx reductions and less than 2 percent (3.2/170) of the needed VOC reductions. C . What Action Is EPA Proposingfor the VoluntaryEmission 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 programmeasures 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 VOCTPD NOxTPD 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 WilliamCounty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 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 EPAapproval ofthese voluntary emission reduction programmeasures 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 EPAguidance and policy, for those non-regulatory voluntary measures for which States request approval but claimno reduction credits prospectively, the States may subsequently amend their SIPs with revisions documenting any emission reduction credits actually achieved. EPAwould 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 ofVirginia'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 SIPwill 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. EPAbelieves approval ofthese 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 ofthe 1-hour and 8-hourFederal Register/Vol

. 69, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2004/Proposed Rules ozone NAAQSsuch as reduction of fine particulate matter. EPAis 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 reviewof this material indicates that Maryland's February 19, 2004 SIP submittal ofnon-regulatory voluntary emission reduction program measures for theWashington area meet the applicable requirements of EPA guidance and policy for approval . EPA is proposing to approve thefollowing voluntary emission reduction program measures into the Maryland SIP : Montgomery County Regional Wind Power Purchase, Low-VOCPaints 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 ImproveAir Quality in theWashington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 'SevereArea 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 EPAby Maryland on February 19, 2004

. EPA is also proposing to credit the Maryland SIP with the emission reductions for these measures shown in Table 2of this document for theWashington area. B . Virginia EPA's review

of this material indicates that Virginia's February 25, 2004 SIP submittal ofnon-regulatory voluntary emission reduction program measures for theWashington area meet the applicable requirements of EPA guidance and policy for approval . EPA is proposing to approve thefollowing voluntary emission reduction program measures into theVirginia SIP : LowVOCPaints 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 Programand Diesel Bus Retrofit Program

. Specifically, EPAis proposing to approve those measures found in section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" of the document entitled "Plan to ImproveAir Quality in the Washington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) 'SevereArea SIP' Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2002 and 2005

; Revision to 1990 Base Year Emissions; and Severe Area Attainment Demonstration for the Washing

ton 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 SIPwith the emission reductions shown in Table 2 ofthis 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 anyadditional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandateor 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 oneor 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 theStates, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among thevarious levels ofgovernment, 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 SIPsubmissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet thecriteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existing requirement for the State to usevoluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to useVCS

. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to useVCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CleanAirAct. 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 andambiguity, 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 andVirginia voluntary emission reduction programmeasures 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 ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart 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-vFederal Regi ster /Vol . 70, No. 91/Thursday, 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 ... . . . . .. . . . . . . VOCContent Limits . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .., . . .. .. . . . ... . . . , 26.11 .33.06 .. . . . . ... . . . . . . Most Restrictive VOCLimit . . . .. .. . . . ... . . . ., ... ., . . .. .. . . 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 40CFRPart 52 [R03-0AR-2004-MD-0001 ; R03-OAR2004-VA-0005; FRL7909-9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland and Virginia; Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission Reduction ProgramMeasures AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . ACTION : Final rule

. SUMMARY

: EPAis approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Maryland and by the Commonwealth ofVirginia. These revisions establish a number of non-regulatory measures for which Maryland and Virginia seek SIPcredit 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/ EPAapproval date citation at 40CFR 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 numberwhere 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 numberwhere 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 ofpoitable 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: EPAhas established a docket for each of the SIPrevisions 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 thesystem, 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 andwill be publicly available only in hard copy form . Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in RMEor in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at theAir 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 theVirginia .24988 Federal Register/ Vol . 70, No. 91 / Thursday, May 12, 2005/Rules and Regulations Department of Environmental Quality, 629East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219

. FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT: Christopher Cripps, (215) 814-2179, or by e-mail at cripps .chrisfophezOepa .gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : I . Background On December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76889), EPApublished a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland andfor the Commonwealth of Virginia. The NPRproposed approval of non-regulatory measures that include useof low-or-no-VOCcontent 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 ofthe Environment ME)and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) each submitted the formal revisions to their SIPs. II . Summary ofSIPRevision The States submitted program descriptions that projected VOCand 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 PROGRAMMEASURES FOR THE METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON DC AREA Measure State VOC Implem 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 Georges 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 WilliamCounty . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. 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 8Planning 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 andVirginia Area-wide Reductlon-Low-VOCPaints 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 theTechnical SupportDocument (TSD) for this action

. That TSDis 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 penaltywaiver for violations ofenvironmental laws when a regulated entity discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation andvoluntarily 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 fromdisclosure documents and information aboutthe content ofthose documents that are the product ofavoluntary 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'ofthe assessment process; (3) that demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantialFederal 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 ofVirginia Office ofthe 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 ap

proval," 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 oneofthese 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 im posed by Federal law," any person making avoluntary disclosure of information to a state agency regarding aviolation 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 oneofthe criteria for immunity," Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth fromenforcing its programconsistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPAhas also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal enforcement authorities, EPAmayat any time invoke its authority under the Clean AirAct, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independentl yof any state enforcement effort . In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 ofthe Clean AirAct is likewise unaffected by this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law . Other specific requirements of the

bundle ofvoluntary emission reduction programmeasures and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPRand 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 andVirginia SIPrevisions

. Twoof these letters observed that there is nothing voluntary about theState commitments in these SIPrevisions even though these measures are titled "voluntary measures" by EPA

. EPAagrees 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 byrequiring the state to commit to monitor the implementation and effectiveness ofthe measure and, where a reduction credit is sought by the SIP, to make-up any shortfall in emissions reductions. Thefourth letter was not opposed or adverse to the proposed action but rather asserted that therewas a typographical error with regards to the emission reduction credit claimed by the Commonwealth ofVirginia for the Arlington County wind power purchase measure. Thecomment letter asserts that the SIP sought no reduction credit from the measure. EPAhas reexamined the SIPrevision submitted by Virginia and agrees that EPAmistakenly proposed to credit theArlington County wind power purchase measurewith emission reduction credit. On page 7-78 of section 7

.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" ofthe document entitled "Plan to ImproveAir 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; andSevere 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 Virginiajurisdictions." 24989 Table 1 ofthis document reflects this change from

Table 2 of the NPR

. V . Final Action A. State ofMaryland EPA's reviewof this material indicates that Maryland's February 19, 2004 SIPsubmittal ofnon-regulatory voluntary emission reduction program measures for the Washington area meet the applicable requirements of EPA guidance and policy for approval . EPA is approving thefollowingvoluntary emission reduction program measures into the Maryland SIP : Montgomery County Regional Wind Power Purchase, Low-VOCPaints Program, and Gas Can Replacement Program . Specifically, EPA is approving those measures found in section 7.6 entitled "Voluntary Bundle" ofthe document entitled "Plan to Improve Air Quality in theWashington, DC-MD-VA Region, State Implementation Plan (SIP) "SevereArea 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 EPAby Maryland on February 19, 2004. EPAis crediting the Maryland SIPwith the emission reductions for these measures shown in Table 2 ofthis document for the Washington area. B. Commonwealth of Virginia EPA's review

of this material indicates that Virginia's February 25, 2004 SIPsubmittal of non-regulatory voluntary emission reduction program measures for theWashington area meet the applicable requirements of EPA guidance and policy for approval . EPA is approving thefollowingvoluntary emission reduction programmeasures into theVirginia 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 ImproveAir 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; andSevere Area24990 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. EPAis crediting the Virginia SIPwith 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 ofsmall entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U

.S.C

. 601 et seq.) . Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law

anddoes not impose anyadditional 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 theStates, on the relationship between the National Government and theStates, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities amongthevarious levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) . This action merely approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard, anddoes not alter the relationship or thedistribution of power and responsibilities established in the CleanAir Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks andSafety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically si gnificant. In reviewing SIPsubmissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet thecriteria of the CleanAir Act. In this context, in the absence ofa prior existingrequirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIPsubmission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to useVCSin place of a SIPsubmission that otherwise satisfiesthe provisions of the CleanAirAct. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U .S.C . 272note) do not apply . This rule does not impose an information collection burden underthe 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 ReviewAct, 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 maytake 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 ofthe United States, EPAwill submit a report containing this rule andother 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. Houseof Representatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a "major rule" as defined by 5 U .S.C. 804(2) . C . PetitionsforJudicial Review Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2005. Filing a petition for reconsideration by theAdministrator ofthis final rule does not affect thefinality of this rule for the purposes ofjudicial reviewnor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review

may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action to approve Maryland andVirginia voluntary emission reduction program measures may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) .) List ofSubjects in 40CFRPart 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 40CFRpart 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 endofthe 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 andAppendix J of the plan.Federal Regi ster / V ol . 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 40CFRPart 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 EPAapproval date

G . Theconformity budget under section 176(c)(2)(A) oftheAct and § 93.118 of the transportation conformity rule (40 CFRpart 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 ofWashington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-422, Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection, to provide an inspection schedule for motor vehicles between 5 and 25years old. A Technical Support Document on file at the EPA Region 10office contains a detailed analysis and rationale in support ofthe SpokaneSerious 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, EPApublished in the Federal Register, a pro posal to approve the Spokane, Washington CO serious Attainment Plan, revisions to theWashington State Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program, and certain source-specific SIPrevisions relating to Kaiser Aluminumand Chemical Corporation

. See 70 FR 11179

. SUMMARY: The EPAis approvingState II . Public Comments on the Proposed Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions Action submitted to EPA by the State of Washington that consist of APlan for EPAprovided a 30-day reviewand Attaining Carbon Monoxide (CO) comment period andsolicited National AmbientAir 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 EPAis also approving certain source-specific SIPrevisions relating to Kaiser Aluminum

and Chemical Corporation of Spokane. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 13, 2005. ADDRESSES

: EPAhas established a docket for this action under Docket I .D

. No. WA-01-003. Publicl yavailable docket materials are available in hard copy at the Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency,.1200Sixth Ave ., Seattle, Washington 98101 . This Docket Facility is open from8:30a.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), EPARegion 10, 1200Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 ; telephone number: (206) 553-1086; fax number: 206-553- the Non-Regulatory Voluntary Emission §52.2420 Identification of plan. Reduction Programat the end ofthe 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 theWashington State Implementation Plan. Specifically, we are approving thefollowing elements of the Spokane COAttainment Plan, submitted on September 20, 2001 and November 22, 2004: A. Procedural requirements, under section 110(a)(2) ofthe 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 . VMTforecasts under section 187(a)(2)(A) of the Act; F . Contingency measures under section 187(a)(3) of theAct; 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 SignificantlyAffect 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 ofsmall 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 anyadditional enforceable-duty beyond that required by State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small