[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 150 (Tuesday, August 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42079-42087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20575]



[[Page 42079]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD 039-3012; FRL-5869-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Maryland; 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plan for the Baltimore 
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing conditional approval of the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland 
for the Baltimore severe ozone nonattainment area to meet the 15 
percent rate-of-progress (ROP) requirements (also known as the 15% 
plan) of the Clean Air Act (the Act). EPA is proposing conditional 
approval because the 15% plan, submitted by the State of Maryland, will 
result in significant emission reductions from the 1990 baseline 
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which contribute to the 
formation of ground level ozone and, thus, will improve air quality. 
This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be postmarked by September 
4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, 
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode 3AT21, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency--Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107. Copies of the documents relevant to 
this action are available for public inspection during normal business 
hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania, 19107. Persons interested in examining these documents 
should schedule an appointment with the contact person (listed below) 
at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Copies of the documents 
relevant to this action are also available at the Maryland Department 
of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn M. Donahue, Ozone/Carbon 
Monoxide, and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841 
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, or by telephone 
at (215) 566-2095. Questions may also be addressed via email at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6828988878e9383c8858794898a9f88a68396878b878f8ac8839687c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="31555e5f505944541f5250435e5d485f715441505c50585d1f5441501f565e47">[email protected]</span></a>. Please note that only written comments 
can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 182(b)(1) of the Act, as amended in 1990, requires ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above to develop plans to 
reduce VOC emissions by 15% from 1990 baseline levels in the area while 
accounting for growth from 1990 to 1996. VOCs emitted during the summer 
months contribute to the formation of ground level ozone.
    The Baltimore area is classified as a severe ozone nonattainment 
area and is subject to the 15% requirement. The Baltimore ozone 
nonattainment area consists of the Counties of Anne Arundel, Baltimore, 
Carroll, Harford, Howard, and the City of Baltimore. These areas are 
subject to Maryland's 15% plan.
    The Act sets limitations on the creditability of certain control 
measures towards reasonable further progress. Specifically, states 
cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle 
Control Program (FMVCP) measures (e.g., new car emissions standards) 
promulgated prior to 1990; or for reductions stemming from regulations 
promulgated prior to 1990 to lower the volatility (i.e., Reid Vapor 
Pressure (RVP)) of gasoline. Furthermore, the Act does not allow credit 
towards reasonable further progress (RFP) for post-1990 corrections to 
existing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or 
corrections to reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules, 
since these programs were required to be in-place prior to 1990. In 
addition to these restrictions, a creditable measure must be either in 
the approved SIP, result from a national rule promulgated by EPA or be 
contained in a permit issued under Title V of the Act. Any measure must 
result in real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emission 
reductions to be creditable toward the 15% goal.
    In Maryland, three nonattainment areas are subject to the 15% ROP 
requirements of the Act. These are Cecil County (part of the 
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton severe nonattainment area), the 
Baltimore nonattainment area, and the Maryland portion of the 
Metropolitan Washington, DC serious nonattainment area. EPA is taking 
action today only on the Baltimore nonattainment area. Cecil County and 
the Maryland portion of the Metropolitan Washington, DC nonattainment 
area are the subjects of separate rulemaking notices.
    On April 16, 1997 and May 13, 1997, Maryland submitted draft 
revised 15% plans for the Baltimore area. Maryland scheduled a public 
hearing on the proposed revisions to its plan on August 13, 1997. EPA 
is taking action today on Maryland's July 12, 1995 submittal of its 15% 
plan with the knowledge that Maryland will be making a formal SIP 
revision revising that 15% plan.
    EPA has reviewed Maryland's July 12, 1995 15% plan submittal and 
has identified several deficiencies, which prohibit its full approval. 
A detailed discussion of these deficiencies is included below, in the 
ANALYSIS portion of this rulemaking action, and also in the Technical 
Support Document (TSD) prepared by EPA for this action. Copies of the 
TSD are available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in 
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Due to these deficiencies, it 
cannot be affirmatively determined that the State's plan achieves the 
15% ROP target for reductions in VOCs. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
conditional approval of this 15% plan.

II. Analysis of the SIP Revision

A. Base Year Emission Inventory

    The baseline from which states must determine the required 
reductions for 15% planning is the 1990 VOC base year emissions 
inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source 
categories: Stationary, area, on-road mobile, and off-road mobile. 
Maryland submitted formal SIP revisions containing the 1990 VOC base 
year inventory for the Baltimore nonattainment area on July 12, 1995. 
EPA approved Maryland's 1990 base year inventory submittals on 
September 27, 1996 (61 FR 50715).
    In the Baltimore 15% plan, Maryland submitted a 1990 mobile source 
base year inventory of 134.2 tons VOC per day (TPD). However, the EPA 
approved 1990 mobile source base year inventory for the Baltimore 
nonattainment area is 131.5 TPD. The 1990 mobile source inventory of 
134.2 TPD, and the resulting 1990 ROP base year inventory of 346.8 TPD, 
are used throughout this action; however, as a condition of this 
rulemaking, Maryland must revise their 15% plan calculations to reflect 
the approved base year inventory for the Baltimore nonattainment area.

[[Page 42080]]

B. Growth in Emissions Between 1990 and 1996

    EPA has interpreted the Act to require that reasonable further 
progress towards attainment of the ozone standard must be obtained 
after offsetting any growth expected to occur over that period. 
Therefore, to meet the 15% ROP requirement, a state must enact measures 
achieving sufficient emissions reductions to offset projected growth in 
emissions, in addition to achieving a 15% reduction of VOC emissions 
from baseline levels. Thus an estimate of VOC emissions growth from 
1990 to 1996 is necessary for determining whether the 15% reduction 
target has been achieved. Growth is calculated by multiplying the 1990 
base year inventory by acceptable forecasting indicators. Growth must 
be determined separately for each source, or by source category, since 
sources typically grow at different rates. EPA's inventory preparation 
guidance recommends the following indicators, as applied to emission 
units in the case of stationary sources or to a source category in the 
case of area sources, in order of preference: product output, value 
added, earnings, and employment. Population can also serve as a 
surrogate indicator.
    Maryland's 15% plan contains growth projections for point, area, 
on-road motor vehicle, and non-road vehicle source categories. For a 
detailed description of the growth methodologies used by the State, 
please refer to the TSD for this action.
    To estimate growth for point, area, and non-road mobile sources, 
Maryland used acceptable growth factor surrogates such as population, 
employment and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The travel demand computer 
model, MOBILE5a, was used to project growth for on-road sources. The 
State's methodology for selecting growth factors and applying them to 
the 1990 base year emissions inventory to estimate growth in emissions 
in point, area, on-road mobile, and off-road mobile sources from 1990 
to 1996 is approvable.

C. Calculation of Target Level Emissions

    EPA has interpreted section 182(b) of the Act to require that the 
base year VOC emission inventory be adjusted to account for reductions 
that would occur from the pre-1990 FMVCP and RVP programs. First, the 
State calculated the non-creditable reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP 
and RVP programs and subtracted those emissions from the 1990 ROP 
inventory. This yields the 1990 ``adjusted base year inventory.'' The 
target level is the 1990 ROP inventory less the sum of the following:
    1. 15% of the adjusted base year inventory,
    2. The sum of the non-creditable reductions from the pre-1990 FMVCP 
and RVP programs,
    3. And reductions resulting from post-1990 correctons to existing 
motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs or corrections 
to RACT rules.
    There were no post 1990 emission reductions attributed to RACT 
corrections or I/M corrections in the Baltimore nonattainment area, and 
the 15% plan correctly claimed zero reductions in the target level 
calculation. The table below summarizes the calculations for the 1996 
VOC target level for the entire Baltimore ozone nonattainment area.

 Calculation of Required Reductions for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area
                         15% Plan (tons per day)                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................  1990 ROP Inventory...............      346.8
2.........................  1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory      307.1
3.........................  FMVCP/RVP Adjustment (Line 1 less       39.7
                             line 2).                                   
4.........................  15% Reduction Requirement = 15%         46.1
                             of Adjusted Base Year (.15 x               
                             Line 2).                                   
5.........................  RACT Corrections and I/M                 0.0
                             Corrections.                               
6.........................  Total 15% & Non-creditable              85.8
                             Reductions (Sum of lines 3, 4,             
                             and 5).                                    
7.........................  Projected Growth 1990 to 1996....       27.2
8.........................  Required Emission Reductions (15%       73.3
                             plus growth--line 4 plus line 7).          
9.........................  Total Reductions Claimed in 15%         76.8
                             Plan.                                      
10........................  Target Level (line 1 less line 6)      261.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emission reduction required to meet the 15% ROP requirement 
equals the sum of 15% of the adjusted base year inventory and any 
reductions necessary to offset emissions growth projected to occur 
between 1990 and 1996, plus reductions that resulted from corrections 
to the I/M or VOC RACT rules that were required to be in place before 
1990. The target level, line 10 of the table, is the 1990 ROP inventory 
less the base 15% reduction (line 4 of the table) and less all non-
creditable emission reductions (lines 3 and 5 of the table). EPA 
believes that the target level of 261.0 TPD has been properly 
calculated in accordance with EPA guidance.

D. Control Strategies in the 15% Plan

    The specific measures adopted (either through state or federal 
rules) for the Baltimore nonattainment area are addressed, in detail, 
in the State's 15% plan. The following is a brief description of each 
control measure Maryland has claimed credit for in the submitted 15% 
plan, as well as the results of EPA's review of the use of that 
strategy towards the Act's 15% ROP requirement.
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
    Section 211(k) of the Act requires that, beginning January 1, 1995, 
only RFG be sold or dispensed in ozone nonattainment areas classified 
as severe or above. Thus, RFG is required in the Baltimore 
nonattainment area. Gasoline is reformulated to reduce combustion by-
products and to produce fewer evaporative emissions. The State claims a 
reduction of 12.4 TPD from its 1996 projected uncontrolled on-road 
mobile source emissions, accounting for vehicular and refueling 
benefits, using the MOBILE5a model to determine the emission benefit. 
EPA has reviewed the Maryland submittal's calculation of the benefits 
for this measure and finds that the amount of reduction Maryland claims 
is creditable, but has not been documented as required by the Act.
    In order to address these documentation and modeling issues, as 
well as the requirements of the National Highway Systems Designation 
Act (NHSDA), EPA is requiring Maryland to recalculate the mobile source 
credits for enhanced I/M program, RFG and FMVCP (Tier I). The use of 
RFG will also result in reduced emissions from off-road engines such as 
motors for recreational boats and lawn mower engines, commonly used in 
summer months. The benefits from RFG and Tier I must not be separated 
out on a tons per day basis for each control measure, but rather all 
mobile source measures must be included in the 1999 target level 
calculation run. This remodeling assessment will therefore remove any

[[Page 42081]]

potential for ``double-counting'' the credit accorded to individual 
mobile source measures. While EPA will require Maryland to document and 
remodel the credits derived from RFG under the remodeling condition 
cited in the enhanced I/M section of this rule, EPA has no reason to 
dispute at this time that the 12.4 TPD emission benefit claimed in 
Maryland's 15% plan from the RFG program is creditable.
Off-Road Use of Reformulated Gasoline
    Maryland claims a reduction of 1.4 TPD from its 1996 projected 
uncontrolled off-road mobile source emissions. Maryland used guidance 
provided on August 18, 1993 by EPA's Office of Mobile Sources on the 
VOC emission benefits for non-road equipment which are in a 
nonattainment area that uses Federal Phase I RFG. Maryland has 
correctly used the guidance to quantify the VOC emission reductions for 
this measure. EPA had determined that the 1.4 TPD emission benefit 
claimed in Maryland's 15% plan is creditable.
Post 1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (Tier I)
    EPA promulgated a national rule establishing ``new car'' standards 
for 1994 and newer model year light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks 
on June 5, 1991 (56 FR 25724). Since the standards were adopted after 
the Act was amended in 1990, the resulting emission reductions are 
creditable toward the 15% reduction goal. Due to the three-year phase-
in period for this program and the associated benefits stemming from 
fleet turnover, the reductions prior to 1996 are somewhat limited. 
Maryland claimed a reduction of 1.4 TPD from the Tier I using the 
MOBILE5a model to determine the emission benefits. EPA has reviewed the 
methodology used by Maryland in calculating the benefits for this 
measure and finds that the amount of reduction Maryland claims is 
creditable, but has not been documented as required by the Act.
    In order to address these documentation and modeling issues, as 
well as the requirements of the NHSDA, EPA is requiring Maryland to 
recalculate the mobile source credits for enhanced I/M, RFG, and Tier 
I. The benefits from RFG and Tier I must not be separated out on a tons 
per day basis for each control measure, but rather all mobile source 
measures must be included in the 1999 target level calculation run. 
This remodeling assessment will, therefore, remove any potential for 
``double-counting'' the credit accorded to individual mobile source 
measures. While EPA will require Maryland to remodel the credits 
derived from Tier I under the remodeling condition cited in the 
enhanced I/M section of this rule, EPA has no reason to dispute at this 
time that the 1.4 TPD emission benefit claimed by Maryland in its 15% 
plan from Tier I is creditable.
Architectural and Industrial Maintenance Coatings (AIM)
    In EPA's most recent policy memorandum on AIM credits, ``Update on 
the Credit for the 15 Percent Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions 
from the Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings 
Rule'', dated March 7, 1996, EPA allowed states to claim a 20% 
reduction of total AIM emissions from the national rule. Maryland 
claimed a 20% reduction in AIM emissions under its 15% plan, which is a 
reduction of 6.5 TPD from their 1996 projected uncontrolled AIM coating 
emissions. In the March 7, 1996 memorandum, EPA allowed states to 
continue to claim a 20% reduction of total AIM emissions from the 
national rule in their 15% plans although the emission reductions are 
not expected to occur until April 1997. As a result of legal challenges 
to the proposed national rule, EPA has negotiated a compliance date of 
no earlier than January 1, 1998. Even though the promulgation date for 
this rule is now months beyond the end of 1996, it is EPA's intention 
to still allow the amount of credit specified for the AIM rule in the 
memorandum in states' 15% plans. EPA believes this is justified in 
light of the significant delays in proposing the rule. Furthermore, EPA 
believes the State has a significantly limited ability to effectuate 
reductions from this measure through the state adoption process any 
sooner than EPA's rulemaking schedule. If this final rule does not 
provide the amount of credit that Maryland claims in its 15% plan, the 
State is responsible for developing measures to make up the shortfall.
    Use of emissions reductions from EPA's expected national AIM rule 
is acceptable towards the 15% plan target. Therefore, the 6.5 TPD in 
Maryland's 15% plan are creditable.
Consumer and Commercial Products
    Section 183(e) of the Act required EPA to conduct a study of VOC 
emissions from consumer and commercial products and to compile a 
regulatory priority list. EPA is then required to regulate those 
categories that account for 80% of the consumer product emissions in 
ozone nonattainment areas. Group I of EPA's regulatory schedule lists 
24 categories of consumer products to be regulated by national rule, 
including personal, household, and automotive products. EPA intends to 
issue a final rule covering these products in the near future. EPA 
policy allows states to claim up to a 20% reduction of total consumer 
product emissions towards the ROP requirement. However, Maryland 
claimed a 7.5% reduction or the equivalent reduction of 1.7 TPD from 
its 1996 projected uncontrolled consumer and commercial products 
emissions in its 15% plan, based on a 1992 California Air Resources 
Board (CARB) technical support document entitled ``Proposed Amendments 
to the Statewide Regulation to Reduce VOC Emissions from Consumer 
Products.''
    For the reasons discussed above under the AIM rule regarding 
delayed implementation of national rules, the EPA believes the 1.7 TPD 
projected reduction in Maryland's 15% plan is creditable. If this final 
rule does not provide the amount of credit that Maryland claims in its 
15% plan, the State is responsible for developing measures to make up 
the shortfall.
Autobody Refinishing
    In a November 29, 1994 memorandum, ``Credit for the 15 Percent 
Rate-of-Progress Plans for Reductions from the Architectural and 
Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coating Rule and the Autobody Refinishing 
Rule,'' EPA set forth policy on the creditable reductions to be assumed 
from the national rule for autobody refinishing. That memorandum 
allowed for a 37% reduction from current emissions with an assumption 
of 100% rule effectiveness (presuming the coating application 
instructions were being followed). However, Maryland has adopted a 
state autobody refinishing regulation, approved by EPA in a separate 
rulemaking action. This state rule allows for a 45% reduction from 
current emissions in the 15% plans, according to a recommendation by 
the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) 
in a guidance document entitled Meeting the 15-Percent Rate of Progress 
Requirements Under the Clean Air Act: A Menu of Options. From this 
regulation, Maryland claimed a reduction of 5.0 TPD from their 1996 
projected uncontrolled autobody emissions in its 15% plan. EPA has 
determined that this 5.0 TPD reduction claimed in Maryland's 15% plan 
for the Baltimore area is creditable toward the 15% ROP requirement. If 
this final rule does not provide the amount of credit that Maryland 
claims in its 15% plan,

[[Page 42082]]

the State is responsible for developing measures to make up the 
shortfall.
Stage II Vapor Recovery
    Section 182(b)(3) of the Act requires all owners and operators of 
gasoline dispensing systems in moderate and above ozone nonattainment 
areas to install and operate a system for gasoline vapor recovery 
(known as Stage II) of emissions from the fueling of motor vehicles. 
Stage II vapor recovery is a control measure which substantially 
reduces the VOC emissions during the refueling of motor vehicles at 
gasoline service stations. The Stage II vapor recovery nozzles at 
gasoline pumps capture the gasoline-rich vapors displaced by liquid 
fuel during the refueling process. On November 15, 1992, Maryland 
submitted a revision to its SIP to require the Stage II controls in all 
counties of the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area.
    Maryland had no pre-1990 Stage II controls in the Baltimore 
nonattainment area. Stage II is a creditable measure in counties where 
these controls were not required before 1990. Maryland estimates that 
the control measure will result in a reduction of 7.4 TPD. The Maryland 
15% plan states that Maryland used the MOBILE5a model in conjunction 
with gasoline throughput to determine the creditable emission 
reduction. For this mobile source measure, the State submitted limited 
documentation with regard to the MOBILE5a runs and calculations done to 
determine credit. However, EPA has no reason to dispute Maryland's 
methodology. This measure and the 7.4 TPD is creditable toward the 15% 
requirement of Maryland's 15% plan.
Seasonal Restrictions on Open Burning
    Maryland has amended COMAR 26.11.07 to institute a ban on open 
burning during the peak ozone season in Maryland's severe and serious 
ozone nonattainment areas. Maryland considers the months of June, July, 
and August the peak ozone season, because that is when ambient levels 
of ozone in Maryland are usually the highest. This ban on open burning 
affecting the Baltimore severe ozone nonattainment area is a measure to 
reduce VOC emissions. During the peak ozone season, the practice of 
burning for the disposal of brush and yard waste as a method of land 
clearing will be banned. These revisions were adopted on May 1, 1995, 
and effective on May 22, 1995. Maryland submitted these revisions to 
EPA as a SIP revision on July 12, 1995. EPA's direct final approval of 
these revisions into the Maryland SIP was signed on January 31, 1997.
    The following open fires are not prohibited, as long as all 
reasonable means are used to minimize smoke:
    1. For cooking of food on noncommercial property (cook outs),
    2. For recreational purposes (camp fires),
    3. For prevention of fire hazards that cannot be abated by any 
other means,
    4. For the instruction of fire fighters or the testing of fire 
fighter training systems fueled by propane or natural gas,
    5. For protection of health & safety when disposal of hazardous 
waste is not possible by any other means,
    6. For burning pest infested crops or agricultural burning for 
animal disease control,
    7. For good forest resource management practices,
    8. For the burning of excessive lodging for the purpose of re-
cropping, and
    9. For testing fire fighting training systems.
    This ban is in effect during the ``peak ozone season''. During the 
remainder of the year (September 1-May 31) Maryland's existing open 
fire regulations apply. Current regulations require that a permit be 
obtained before open burning can take place.
    The State of Maryland claimed 3.85 TPD emissions reductions from 
the seasonal open burning ban in the Baltimore area. Maryland assumed 
100% rule effectiveness to attain this emission reduction. However, the 
State did not submit any documentation substantiating why the default 
value of 80% rule effectiveness should not be applied to this measure.
    Rule effectiveness is an estimate of how effectively a rule is 
implemented, and is used as a percentage of total available reductions 
from a control measure. Pursuant to EPA guidance, control measures are 
subject to a rule effectiveness adjustment, unless clearly documented 
reasons as to why they should not be subjected are included in the 
submittal. Therefore, the State of Maryland can claim 3.1 TPD emissions 
reductions from the seasonal open burning ban (80% of 3.85 TPD). EPA 
has determined that this emission benefit is creditable to the 
Baltimore nonattainment area 15% plan.
Lithographic Printing
    This measure regulates emissions from formerly uncontrolled small 
lithographic printing operations, such as heatset web, non-heatset web, 
non-heatset sheet-fed, and newspaper non-heatset web operations. VOCs 
are emitted from the inks, fountain solutions and solvents used to 
clean the printing presses. This measure is modeled on EPA's draft 
documents ``Offset Lithographic Printing Control Techniques Guideline'' 
and ``Alternative Control Techniques Document: Offset Lithographic 
Printing'' announced in the Federal Register, November 8, 1993.
    Maryland claimed an emission reduction from lithographic printing 
sources of 0.5 TPD for the Baltimore nonattainment area. EPA is 
approving Maryland's lithographic printing regulation in a separate 
rulemaking action. Therefore, the 0.5 TPD reduction claimed in the 15% 
plan for the Baltimore nonattainment area from sheet-fed and web 
lithographic printing operations is creditable toward the 15% ROP 
requirement.
Surface Cleaning Operations
    This measure amends the Maryland regulation for surface cleaning 
(also called cold cleaning and degreasing) devices and operations for 
area sources and requires more stringent emission control requirements 
and enlarges the field of applicable sources. Maryland's 1996 
projection year inventory in this source category is 11.0 TPD. Maryland 
estimates that this rule would result in a 50% reduction of emissions 
resulting in 5.5 TPD reduction credits. EPA is approving Maryland's 
surface cleaning and degreasing regulation in a separate rulemaking 
action. Therefore, the 5.5 TPD reduction claimed in the 15% plan for 
the Baltimore nonattainment area from surface cleaning and degreasing 
is creditable toward the 15% ROP requirement.
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
    Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act requires areas in the Ozone 
Transport Region (OTR) to implement RACT regulations for all VOC 
sources that have the potential to emit 50 TPY or more. In addition, 
section 182(b)(2) requires states to implement RACT regulations on all 
``major'' sources of VOC in moderate or above ozone nonattainment 
areas. Major VOC sources are those with the potential to emit at least 
100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in 
severe areas. Because Maryland is in the OTR, the State is required to 
implement RACT regulations for all sources with the potential to emit 
50 TPY or more, throughout the state. Furthermore, in Maryland's severe 
ozone nonattainment areas, RACT is required for all VOC sources with 
the potential to emit 25 TPY or more.
    Several of the regulations submitted by Maryland on July 12, 1995 
establish

[[Page 42083]]

RACT for major VOC sources, and therefore fulfill, in part, Maryland's 
obligations under both section 182 of the Act and its generic RACT 
regulation. These RACT regulations, for expandable polystyrene 
products, yeast production, bakeries, and screen printing, have been 
approved into the Maryland SIP in a separate rulemaking action. EPA has 
determined that the 1.4 TPD reduction claimed by Maryland from RACT on 
these four categories is creditable toward the 15% ROP requirement for 
the Baltimore nonattainment area.
Federal Air Toxics
    This measure addresses sources required to comply with federal air 
toxics requirements that have or will achieve VOC reductions between 
1990 and 1996. Federal rules that may achieve these reductions include 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for 
vinyl chloride production plants and benzene emissions from equipment 
leaks, benzene storage vessels, coke by-product recovery plants, 
benzene transfer operations, and waste operations, or maximum available 
control technology (MACT) standards for coke ovens, dry cleaners, and 
chromium electroplating.
    Maryland claimed 0.4 TPD from this control measure. Credit is 
allowable from MACT and NESHAP; thus, 0.4 TPD from federal air toxics 
is fully creditable toward Maryland's 15% plan for the Baltimore 
nonattainment area.
Enhanced Rule Compliance
    This measure increases the effectiveness of existing regulations by 
enhancing rule compliance through increased or enhanced inspections and 
other enforcement activities. In the 15% plan, rule effectiveness (RE) 
improvements are targeted at tank truck unloading operations at 
gasoline dispensing facilities and at specified bulk terminals.
    RE reflects the ability of a regulatory program to achieve all the 
emission reductions that could have been achieved by full compliance at 
all times. The precise degree to which all affected sources comply with 
a particular regulation is almost impossible to determine unless 
emissions are continuously monitored at all times or unless the 
reductions are achieved through an irreversible process change. 
Measures for improving RE include activities undertaken by the 
regulating agency to improve inspections and/or deter violations, or 
activities undertaken by the sources. For the regulating agency the 
improvements can include enhanced training of inspectors, increased 
inspection frequency or scope, activities such as periodic workshops to 
inform sources of their obligations, and increased publicity of the 
issuance of notices of violation and fines. Measures imposed upon 
sources include improved operator training, improved recordkeeping such 
as daily operation and maintenance logs, increased testing frequencies 
and improved written operation and maintenance procedures. (RE can also 
be improved when underlying legislation increased after 1990 the 
severity of civil and criminal sanctions under the relevant state's 
laws.) To estimate the affect on RE a particular improvement will have 
the methodology of the matrix in Appendix C to the guidance document 
``Rule Effectiveness: Integration of Inventory, Compliance and 
Assessment Applications'' (EPA-452/R-94-001, January 1994) must be 
used. The state must also commit to perform a Stationary Source 
Compliance Division (SSCD) Protocol Study or perform in lieu of the 
SSCD protocol the study specified in the memorandum from Susan E. 
Bromm, Director, Chemical/Commercial and Municipal Division, Office of 
Compliance, entitled ``Transmittal of Rule Effectiveness Protocol for 
the 1996 Demonstration'' dated December 22, 1994.
    Maryland has claimed a 6.3 TPD reduction from enhanced rule 
compliance for the Baltimore nonattainment area. This is enforceable 
under the state approved Title V program, but EPA cannot credit this 
claim because the State needs to submit this control measure as part of 
the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Also, Maryland must submit to EPA 
further documentation of its claims, i.e., source-specific rule 
effectiveness worksheets to support enhanced rule compliance claims in 
Maryland's 15% plan for the Baltimore area.
State Air Toxics
    This measure addresses stationary sources that are covered by 
Maryland's air toxics regulations that have achieved VOC reductions 
above and beyond current federally enforceable limits. In general, 
Maryland's air toxics regulations cover any source required to obtain a 
permit to construct or an annually renewed state permit to operate. 
Maryland claimed 0.9 TPD from state air toxics in the Baltimore 
nonattainment area. This measure is creditable and enforceable under 
the State's Title V program.
Enhanced Vehicle Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) Program
    Most of the 15% SIPs originally submitted to the EPA contained 
enhanced I/M programs because this program achieves more VOC emission 
reductions than most, if not all other, control strategies. However, 
because most states experienced substantial difficulties with these 
enhanced I/M programs, only a few states are currently actually testing 
cars using their original enhanced I/M protocols.
    In the case of the Baltimore nonattainment area, Maryland has 
submitted a 15% SIP that would achieve the amount of reductions needed 
from I/M by November 1999. On March 27, 1996, Maryland submitted an 
enhanced I/M SIP revision that calls for I/M program implementation in 
counties in the Baltimore nonattainment area. The Maryland enhanced I/M 
program is a biennial program with implementation required to begin no 
later than November 15, 1997. The enhanced I/M submittal consists of 
its enabling legislation, a description of the I/M program, proposed 
regulations, and a good faith estimate that includes the State's basis 
in fact for emission reductions claimed from the I/M program. On 
October 31, 1996, EPA proposed conditional approval of the March 27, 
1996 enhanced I/M SIP revision (61 FR 56183).
    The proposed conditional approval listed numerous minor and major 
deficiencies, and required Maryland to submit a letter within 30 days 
committing to correct the deficiencies. Maryland submitted a letter 
dated December 23, 1996 (through an extension of the 30 days to January 
2, 1997 (61 FR 64307, December 4, 1996)) committing to meet the 
requirements of full approval outlined in the October 31, 1996 proposed 
rulemaking. Full approval of Maryland's 15% plan is contingent on 
Maryland satisfying the conditions of the conditional approval of its 
enhanced I/M SIP by a date certain within one year of final conditional 
approval, and receiving final full EPA approval of its enhanced I/M 
program. If Maryland corrects the deficiencies by that date and submits 
a new enhanced I/M SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to approve 
that revision. If Maryland fails to fulfill a condition required for 
approval, and its I/M program converts to a disapproval, then the 
conditional approval of Maryland's 15% plan would also convert to a 
disapproval.
    In September 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M rule 
allowing states significant flexibility in

[[Page 42084]]

designing I/M programs appropriate for their needs (60 FR 48029). 
Subsequently, Congress enacted the NHSDA, which provides states with 
additional flexibility in determining the design of enhanced I/M 
programs. The substantial amount of time needed by states to re-design 
enhanced I/M programs in accordance with the guidance contained within 
the NHSDA, secure state legislative approval when necessary, and set up 
the infrastructure to perform the testing program has precluded states 
that revise their enhanced I/M programs from obtaining emission 
reductions from such revised programs by November 15, 1996.
    Given the heavy reliance by many states upon enhanced I/M programs 
to help achieve the 15% VOC emissions reduction required under section 
182(b)(1) of the Act, the recent NHSDA and regulatory changes regarding 
enhanced I/M programs, EPA has determined that that it is no longer 
possible for many states to achieve the portion of the 15% reductions 
that are attributed to I/M by November 15, 1996. Under these 
circumstances, disapproval of the 15% SIPs would serve no purpose. 
Consequently, under certain circumstances, EPA will propose to allow 
states that pursue re-design of enhanced I/M programs to receive 
emission reduction credit from these programs within their 15% plans, 
even though the emissions reductions from the I/M program will occur 
after November 15, 1996. The provisions for crediting reductions for 
enhanced I/M programs is contained in two documents: ``Date by which 
States Need to Achieve all the Reductions Needed for the 15 Percent 
Plan from I/M and Guidance for Recalculation,'' note from John Seitz 
and Margo Oge, dated August 13, 1996, and ``Modelling 15 Percent VOC 
Reductions from I/M in 1999--Supplemental Guidance'', memorandum from 
Gay MacGregor and Sally Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.
    Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of 15% SIPs if the 
emissions reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as well 
as from the other 15% SIP measures, will achieve the 15% level as soon 
after November 15, 1996 as practicable, pursuant to a February 12, 1997 
memorandum from John Seitz and Richard Ossias entitled, ``15 Percent 
VOC SIP Approvals and the ``As Soon As Practicable'' Test''. To make 
this ``as soon as practicable'' determination, EPA must determine that 
the SIP contains all VOC control strategies that are practicable for 
the nonattainment area in question and that meaningfully accelerate the 
date by which the 15% level is achieved. EPA does not believe that 
measures meaningfully accelerate the 15% date if they provide only an 
insignificant amount of reductions.
    EPA has examined other potentially available SIP measures to 
determine if they are practicable for the Baltimore area and if they 
would meaningfully accelerate the date by which the area reaches the 
15% level of reductions. EPA proposes to determine that the SIP does 
contain the appropriate measures. The TSD for this action contains a 
discussion of other measures available for 15% plans. Maryland has 
taken credit for several of these measures (or essentially similar 
measures), such as RFG, revised surface cleaning rules, etc., in the 
15% plan; and taken credit for measures that EPA must promulgate under 
section 183(e) such as AIM coatings, and a consumer and commercial 
products rule. Provided below is a tabular summary of this analysis. 
Measures for which Maryland took credit in the 15% ROP plan are 
identified in the table below as ``In 15% Plan'' and are not available 
as a possible alternative to I/M. The other programs that Maryland 
included in the 15% ROP plan result in only a possible 4.54 TPD 
reduction and do not deliver, in the aggregate, anything close to the 
reductions achieved by enhanced I/M.

             Maryland 15% Plan--Baltimore Nonattainment Area            
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Potential VOC reduction  (tons/
          Measures considered                          day)             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area Source Measures:                                                   
    AIM Coatings--Federal Rule.........  In 15% Plan                    
    Wood Products Coating--              In 15% Plan                    
     Reformulation.                                                     
    Consumer Solvents--Federal Rule....  In 15% Plan                    
    Solvent Cleaning--Substitution/      In 15% Plan                    
     Equipment.                                                         
    Graphic Arts--Web Offset Control...  1.10                           
    Autobody Refinishing--ACT control..  In 15% Plan                    
    Landfills--Federal Rule............  In 15% Plan                    
    Other Dry Cleaning--SCAQMD 1102....  0.01                           
    Stage I Enhancement--P/V Vents.....  2.31                           
    Stage II--Vapor Recovery...........  In 15% Plan                    
    Nonroad Gasoline--Reformulated       In 15% Plan                    
     Gasoline.                                                          
Point Source Measures:                                                  
    Other Dry Cleaning--SCAQMD 1102....  0.08                           
    Landfills--National rule, early      In 15% Plan                    
     implementation.                                                    
    Stage I--P/V Vents.................  0.11                           
    Flexographic Printing--MACT early    In 15% Plan                    
     implementation.                                                    
    Gravure Printing--MACT early         0.93                           
     implementation.                                                    
    Web Offset Lithography--ACT control  In 15% Plan                    
Non-mandated On-Road Mobile Measures:                                   
    Reformulated Gasoline..............  In 15% Plan                    
I/M Reductions:                                                         
    High Enhanced in 15% Plan..........  In 15% Plan                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has determined that the enhanced I/M program is the only 
measure that will significantly accelerate the date by which the 15% 
requirement will be achieved. EPA proposes to determine that Maryland's 
15% plan does contain all measures, including enhanced I/M, that 
achieves reductions as soon as practicable. EPA proposes to allow 
enhanced I/M reductions which occur out until November 15, 1999 to 
count toward the

[[Page 42085]]

15% emission reduction level for the 15% plan, since in doing so, the 
state will reach a 15% VOC reduction as soon as practicable.
    Maryland claimed a total of 16.8 TPD credit for this measure. In 
its July 12, 1995 15% plan submittal, Maryland evaluated the I/M 
program using EPA's MOBILE5a model with assumptions that called for 
implementation of a centralized, IM240 test with pressure and purge 
testing, and a program start date of January 1, 1995. Since the time of 
the July 12, 1995 submittal, Maryland has revised its enhanced I/M 
program and submitted the redesigned program to EPA.
    Maryland's I/M program is a biennial, centralized program network 
using IM240 testing equipment scheduled to begin testing by November 
1997. Maryland has designed its centralized network of testing stations 
to accommodate biennial testing. EPA has determined that Maryland 
cannot accelerate the reductions by initially requiring annual testing 
because:
    1. Without additional testing stations other requirements of the 
enhanced I/M rule relating to motorist convenience would suffer. 
Motorist convenience is one important aspect that affects public 
acceptance and effectiveness of the I/M program.
    2. Additional infrastructure changes (e.g. more testing equipment, 
enlarging or building new testing stations, and the hiring and training 
of additional inspectors) to the enhanced I/M program would not come 
on-line in time to afford a substantial increase in the amount of 
reductions realized before November 15, 1999.
    3. The cost effectiveness of the program would be adversely 
affected because the additional costs would not result in a 
corresponding amount of reductions.
    EPA proposes to determine that the I/M program for the Baltimore 
area does achieve reductions from enhanced I/M as soon as practicable.
    Because Maryland's revised I/M program is designed to meet EPA's 
high-enhanced performance standard and will achieve essentially the 
same number of testing cycles between start-up and November 1999 as 
that modeled in the 15% plan, EPA believes that Maryland's program will 
achieve 16.8 TPD of reductions by 1997. However, EPA believes that 
Maryland is best able to perform the definitive determination because 
Maryland will use the same highway network model that was used to 
determine the 1990 base year inventory and the 1996 on-road VOC 
emissions budget used for transportation conformity purposes. (The same 
highway network model is also used for conformity determinations.) EPA 
believes it would be appropriate to condition approval of the 15% ROP 
upon Maryland remodeling the I/M benefits to reflect all relevant 
parameters (start date, network type, test types for exhaust and purge/
pressure testing, waiver rates, cut points, etc.) of the revised, 
enhanced I/M program and show the I/M reductions needed to make the 15% 
reduction are achieved by no later than November 15, 1999. In 
performing this demonstration, the State should ensure that Tier I and 
RFG benefits are considered. Benefits should not be separated out on a 
tons per day basis for each control measure, but rather all mobile 
source measures should be evaluated in the 1999 ``target level'', as 
defined in the December 23, 1996 memorandum, calculation run. EPA would 
further condition that such modeling would be done in accordance with 
EPA guidance. EPA's guidance for remodeling I/M for 15% plans includes: 
(1) A note to the Regional Division Directors from John Seitz and Margo 
Oge dated August 13, 1996 entitled ``Date by which States Need to 
Achieve all the Reductions Needed for the 15% Plan from I/M Guidance 
for Recalculation,'' and (2) a joint memorandum from Gay MacGregor and 
Sally Shaver dated December 23, 1996 entitled ``Modeling 15% VOC 
Reduction(s) from I/M in 1999--Supplemental Guidance.''
    As it relates to Maryland's I/M program, EPA proposes a conditional 
approval of the 16.8 TPD reduction from enhanced I/M in the Baltimore 
nonattainment area, provided Maryland meets the conditions of the 
October 31, 1996 conditional approval of the enhanced I/M program; 
receives full EPA approval of its enhanced I/M program; and remodels 
it's enhanced I/M program using the appropriate, updated parameters 
(e.g., appropriate start date, etc.).
    Further, EPA makes this conditional approval of the 15% plan 
contingent upon Maryland maintaining a mandatory I/M program. EPA will 
not credit any reductions toward the 15% ROP requirement from a 
voluntary enhanced I/M program. Since the State's 15% plan claims 16.8 
TPD from the implementation of a mandatory, centralized, IM240 plan, 
any changes to I/M which would render the program voluntary or 
discontinued would cause a shortfall of credits in the 15% reduction 
goal. EPA is, therefore, proposing in the alternative to convert this 
action automatically to a proposed disapproval should the State make 
the I/M a voluntary measure.

E. Emission Control Measures Not Evaluated

    EPA is not taking action at this time on the following control 
measures contained in the Maryland 15% Plan submitted July 12, 1995:
Municipal Landfill Emissions
    This control measure is a state control program regulating VOC 
emissions from municipal landfills, utilizing landfill gas capture and 
destruction systems. Maryland estimated that this rule would result in 
a reduction of 1.2 TPD. EPA is not taking action on this control 
strategy in the July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor 
crediting the 1.2 TPD reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this 
rulemaking.
Pesticide Reformulation
    This measure requires the use of low-VOC content pesticides for 
consumer, commercial and/or agricultural use. Maryland claims that this 
measure results in a reduction of 2.9 TPD by applying a 40% overall 
reduction to the 1996 base year projection emissions for pesticide 
application. EPA is not taking action on this control strategy in the 
July 12, 1995 Maryland 15% plan submittal, nor crediting the 2.9 TPD 
reduction toward the 15% ROP requirement in this rulemaking.

F. Reasonable Further Progress

    The table below summarizes the proposed creditable measures and 
those measures which EPA is not taking action on in this rulemaking 
from Maryland's 15% plan for the Baltimore nonattainment area.

Summary of Creditable Emission Reductions in the State of Maryland's 15%
    Plan for the Baltimore Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area (Tons/Day)   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creditable Reductions:                                                  
    FMVCP Tier I...............................................      1.2
    Reformulated Gasoline......................................     13.8
    Autobody Refinishing.......................................      5.0
    AIM........................................................      6.5

[[Page 42086]]

                                                                        
    Federal Air Toxics.........................................      0.4
    State Air Toxics...........................................      0.9
    Consumer and Commercial Products...........................      1.7
    Enhanced Rule Compliance...................................      6.3
    Seasonal Open Burning Restrictions.........................      3.1
    Lithographic Printing......................................      0.5
    RACT.......................................................      1.4
    Surface Cleaning and Degreasing............................      5.5
    Stage II Vapor Recovery....................................      7.4
    Enhanced Inspection & Maintenance..........................     16.8
                                                                --------
        Total Creditable.......................................     70.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures EPA is not Taking Action on in this Rulemaking:                
    Municipal Landfills........................................      1.2
    Pesticide Reformulation....................................      2.9
                                                                --------
        Total No Action........................................      4.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated the July 12, 1995 Maryland submittal for 
consistency with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
On its face, Maryland's 15% plan achieves the required 15% VOC emission 
reduction to meet the 15% ROP requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the 
Act. However, there are measures included in the Maryland 15% plan, 
which may be creditable towards the Act requirement but which are 
insufficiently documented for EPA to take action on at this time. While 
the amount of creditable reductions for certain control measures has 
not been adequately documented to qualify for Clean Air Act approval, 
EPA has determined that the submittal for Maryland contains enough of 
the required structure to warrant conditional approval. Furthermore, 
the July 12, 1995 submittal strengthens the SIP.
    Based on EPA's preliminary review of the draft revised 15% plan for 
the Baltimore nonattainment area, sent to EPA for comment by the State 
on April 16, 1997, EPA believes that the amount of VOC reduction that 
Maryland needs to satisfy the 15% ROP requirement in the Baltimore area 
may be lower than the 70.5 TPD accounted for with creditable measures 
in the July 12, 1995 submittal. The draft revised plan includes revised 
information for the 1990 base year inventory and actual growth between 
1990 and 1996, as opposed to projected growth. The effect of these 
revisions may lower the amount of creditable emission reductions 
Maryland needs to achieve the 15% ROP requirement.

III. Proposed Action

    In light of the above deficiencies and to conform with EPA's 
proposed conditional approval of Maryland's I/M program, EPA is 
proposing conditional approval of this SIP revision under section 
110(k)(4) of the Act.
    EPA is proposing conditional approval of the Maryland 15% plan for 
the Baltimore nonattainment area if Maryland commits, in writing, 
within 30 days of EPA's proposal to correct the deficiencies identified 
in this rulemaking. These conditions are described below. If the State 
does not make the required written commitment to EPA within 30 days, 
EPA is proposing in the alternative to disapprove the 15% plan SIP 
revision. If the State does make a timely commitment, but the 
conditions are not met by the specified date within one year, EPA is 
proposing that the rulemaking will convert to a final disapproval. EPA 
would notify Maryland by letter that the conditions have not been met 
and that the conditional approval of the 15% plan has converted to a 
disapproval. Each of the conditions must be fulfilled by Maryland and 
submitted to EPA as an amendment to the SIP. If Maryland corrects the 
deficiencies within one year of conditional approval, and submits a 
revised 15% plan as a SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking to 
fully approve the revision. In order to make this 15% plan approvable, 
Maryland must fulfill the following conditions by no later than 12 
months after EPA's final conditional approval:
    1. Maryland's 15% plan calculations must reflect the EPA approved 
1990 base year emissions inventory (61 FR 50715, September 27, 1996).
    2. Maryland must meet the conditions listed in the October 31, 1996 
conditional I/M rulemaking notice, including its commitment to remodel 
the I/M reductions using the following two EPA guidance memos: ``Date 
by which States Need to Achieve all the Reductions Needed for the 15 
Percent Plan from I/M and Guidance for Recalculation,'' note from John 
Seitz and Margo Oge dated August 13, 1996, and ``Modeling 15% VOC 
Reductions from I/M in 1999--Supplemental Guidance,'' from Gay 
MacGregor and Sally Shaver dated December 23, 1996.
    3. Maryland must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable 
reductions from RFG and Tier I in accordance with EPA guidance.
    4. Maryland must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with a 
determination using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit 
calculations that the 70.5 TPD reduction, supported through creditable 
emission measures in the submittal, satisfies Maryland's 15% ROP 
requirement for the Baltimore area.
    After making all the necessary corrections to establish the 
creditability of chosen control measures, Maryland must demonstrate 
that 15% emission reduction is obtained in the Baltimore nonattainment 
area as required by section 182(b)(1) of the Act and in accordance with 
EPA's policies and guidance.
    Further, EPA makes this conditional approval of the 15% plan 
contingent upon Maryland maintaining a mandatory I/M program. EPA will 
not credit any reductions toward the 15% ROP requirement from a 
voluntary enhanced I/M program. Since the State's 15% plan claims 16.8 
TPD from the implementation of a mandatory, centralized, IM240 plan, 
any changes to I/M which would render the program voluntary or 
discontinued would cause a shortfall of credits in the 15% reduction 
goal. EPA is, therefore, proposing in the alternative to convert this 
action automatically to a proposed

[[Page 42087]]

disapproval should the State make the enhanced I/M program a voluntary 
measure.
    EPA and the Maryland Department of the Environment have worked 
closely since the July 1995 submittal to resolve all the issues 
necessary to fully approve the 15% plan. Maryland is aware of the above 
deficiencies and has addressed many of the above-named deficiencies in 
the draft revised plan. Maryland has stated that it intends to submit 
additional information to address all deficiencies within the 15% plan. 
Therefore, while some deficiencies currently remain in the 15% plan, 
EPA believes that these issues will be resolved no later than 12 months 
after EPA's final conditional approval. EPA will consider all 
information submitted as a supplement or amendment to the July 1995 
submittal prior to any final rulemaking action.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but 
simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new 
requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact 
on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the Act, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval under 
section 110(k), based on the State's failure to meet the commitment, it 
will not affect any existing State requirements applicable to small 
entities. Federal disapproval of the State submittal does not affect 
its state-enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal 
does not impose a new Federal requirement. Therefore, EPA certifies 
that this disapproval action would not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove 
existing requirements nor does it substitute a new federal requirement.
    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more.
    Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and 
least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule 
and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA 
to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments 
that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
    The Regional Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove the 
SIP revision pertaining to the Maryland 15% plan for the Baltimore area 
will be based on whether it meets the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(a)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.
Thomas Voltaggio,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 97-20575 Filed 8-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>