[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
[email protected]. 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