Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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

donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.

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 inplace 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 PhiladelphiaWilmington-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, onroad 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.
42080 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 pre1990 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 post1990 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 line 2) ......................................................................................................................... 39.7

4 ............. 15% Reduction Requirement = 15% of Adjusted Base Year (.15 x Line 2) .......................................................................... 46.1

5 ............. RACT Corrections and I/M Corrections .................................................................................................................................. 0.0

6 ............. Total 15% & Non-creditable Reductions (Sum of lines 3, 4, and 5) ...................................................................................... 85.8

7 ............. Projected Growth 1990 to 1996 .............................................................................................................................................. 27.2

8 ............. Required Emission Reductions (15% plus growth—line 4 plus line 7) .................................................................................. 73.3

9 ............. Total Reductions Claimed in 15% Plan .................................................................................................................................. 76.8

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 threeyear 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-ofProgress 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,
42082 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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, nonheatset sheet-fed, and newspaper nonheatset 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 byproduct 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., sourcespecific 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
42084 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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

Measures considered

Potential

VOC reduction

(tons/day)

Area Source Measures:

AIM Coatings—Federal Rule ..................................................................................................................................................... In 15% Plan

Wood Products Coating—Reformulation ................................................................................................................................... In 15% Plan

Consumer Solvents—Federal Rule ........................................................................................................................................... In 15% Plan

Solvent Cleaning—Substitution/Equipment ............................................................................................................................... In 15% Plan

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 Gasoline ............................................................................................................................. In 15% Plan

Point Source Measures:

Other Dry Cleaning—SCAQMD 1102 ....................................................................................................................................... 0.08

Landfills—National rule, early implementation .......................................................................................................................... In 15% Plan

Stage I—P/V Vents .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.11

Flexographic Printing—MACT early implementation ................................................................................................................. In 15% Plan

Gravure Printing—MACT early implementation ........................................................................................................................ 0.93

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 highenhanced performance standard and

will achieve essentially the same

number of testing cycles between startup 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 lowVOC 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
42086 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules

SUMMARY OF CREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND’S 15% PLAN FOR THE BALTIMORE SEVERE

OZONE NONATTAINMENT AREA (TONS/DAY)—Continued

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 150 / Tuesday, August 5, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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 stateenforceability. 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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–150–9711b; FRL–5866–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans Tennessee:

Approval of Revisions to Maintenance

Plan for Knox County, TN

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State implementation plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Tennessee for the purpose of revising

the Ozone Maintenance plan and

emission projections for Knox County.

In the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by September 4, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to Benjamin

Franco at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4 Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Reference file TN150–01–9711. The

Region 4 office may have additional

background documents not available at

the other locations.