Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 15% Rate of Progress Plan for the Northern Virginia Portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA045-5022; FRL-5846-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

Virginia; 15% Rate of Progress Plan for the Northern Virginia Portion

of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional interim approval of the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of

Virginia, for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan

Washington D.C. serious ozone nonattainment area, to meet the 15

percent reasonable further progress (RFP, or 15% plan) requirements of

the Clean Air Act (the Act). EPA is granting conditional interim

approval of the 15% plan, submitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia,

because on its face the plan achieves the required 15% emission

reduction, but additional documentation to verify the emission

calculations is necessary for full approval. Additionally, the plan

relies upon the Virginia Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) rule that

received final conditional interim approval on May 15, 1997 (62 FR

26745). This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air

Act.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: 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; and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East

Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristeen Gaffney, Ozone/Carbon

Monoxide and Mobile Sources Section (3AT21), USEPA--Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107, or by telephone at

215-566-2092 or via e-mail, at the following address:

[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires ozone nonattainment areas

classified as

[[Page 34000]]

moderate or above to develop plans to reduce volatile organic compounds

(VOC) emissions by fifteen percent from 1990 baseline levels. The

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. area is classified as a serious ozone

nonattainment area and is subject to the 15% plan requirement. The

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area consists of the

entire District of Columbia (``the District''), five counties in the

Northern Virginia area and five counties in Maryland. The Northern

Virginia portion of the nonattainment area consists of the localities

of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William and Stafford, and the

cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park and

Fairfax.

Virginia, Maryland and the District all must demonstrate reasonable

further progress for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment

area. Virginia, Maryland and the District, in conjunction with

municipal planning organizations, collaborated on a coordinated 15%

plan for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area. This was

done with the assistance of the regional air quality planning

committee, the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC),

and the local municipal planning organization, the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), to ensure coordination of

air quality and transportation planning.

The Commonwealth of Virginia submitted the 15% plan SIP revision

for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C.

nonattainment area on May 15, 1995. On March 12, 1997, EPA published a

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in the Federal Register proposing

conditional interim approval of the 15% plan (62 FR 11395). EPA's

rationale for granting conditional interim approval to the Virginia 15%

plan for the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area and the

details of the May 15, 1995 submittal are contained in the March 12,

1997 NPR, the accompanying technical support document and will not be

restated here. There is an addendum to the technical support document

dated June 9, 1997 available from the Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA received two letters in response to the March 12, 1997 NPR from

the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund (SCLDF) and the New York State

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The following

discussion summarizes and responds to the comments received.

Comment 1

SCLDF commented that the Virginia 15% plan must be disapproved

because it failed to produce the 15% emission reduction of 59.9 tons/

day identified in the plan as prescribed by section 182(b)(1)(A)(i) of

the Act. EPA's argument that it believes that Virginia's required 15%

reduction ``may be lower than the 54.4 tons per day'' is flawed.

Speculation is no substitute for the findings EPA must make under

sections 110 and 182 of the Act in order to approve the SIP.

Furthermore, EPA admits that proper documentation is lacking in the

submittal. Lack of documentation and information are grounds for

disapproval.

Response: Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA may conditionally

approve a plan based on a commitment from the state to adopt specific

enforceable measures within one year from the date of approval. EPA

believes that the 15% required reduction in the Northern Virginia

portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area may be

lower than the 59.9 tons/day estimated in the May 15, 1995 SIP

submittal based on new information supplied by the Commonwealth.

Although this information has not been established through an official

SIP submittal, this information is contained in Virginia's rate-of-

progress SIP for the 1996-1999 time period (known as the Post 1996

plan). Virginia has held a public hearing on this SIP, which EPA

provided comments on for the public record, and expects to submit it to

EPA shortly. Under these circumstances--including the fact that the

amount of emissions at issue is a relatively small percentage of the

15% requirement--EPA has the authority to conditionally approve

Virginia's 15% SIP, on the condition that Virginia submit the requisite

documentation. The Commonwealth of Virginia has agreed to meet this

condition to document that the amount of reduction needed to meet the

15% requirement is less than 54.4 tons/day, and has submitted such

commitment in writing.

Comment 2

The inspection and maintenance (I/M) program currently in the 15%

plan and estimated to achieve 23.7 tons/day reduction was renounced by

Virginia. The current Virginia I/M program under the National Highway

Systems Designation Act of 1995 (NHSDA) is not properly before EPA in

the 15% plan.

Response: Virginia never adopted the former I/M program that was

described in the 15% plan and, instead, Virginia resubmitted a new I/M

program under the NHSDA on March 27, 1996. On May 15, 1997, EPA granted

conditional interim approval of Virginia's I/M program in the Virginia

SIP (62 FR 26745). Although the SIP approved I/M program differs from

the program referred to in Virginia's current 15% plan, EPA has

determined that the two programs achieve a similar amount of VOC

reduction credit. In approving the credits from I/M toward the 15%

requirement, EPA is considering the SIP approved version of the I/M

program. Furthermore, under the NHSDA, all states including Virginia

are required to remodel the credits achieved from their I/M program 18

months following program implementation. Full approval of the Virginia

15% plan is also conditioned on this demonstration of credit through

remodeling. The 24.6 tons/day reduction claimed in the May 15, 1995 15%

plan submittal is, therefore, granted only conditional interim approval

until the demonstration required under NHSDA is submitted by Virginia.

Comment 3

SCLDF commented that EPA cannot ignore the November 15, 1996

statutory deadline for the 15% reduction simply because the deadline is

now behind us. It contends that EPA's and states' unlawful delays have

prevented compliance with the November 15, 1996 deadline and that EPA

cannot now jettison the statutory deadlines by substituting the ``as

soon as practicable'' test; rather, SCLDF states, EPA must require

compliance with an ``as soon as possible'' test and fix a compliance

deadline. The commenter cited various court decisions in an effort to

support its formulation of the ``as soon as possible'' test. SCLDF

further added that 1999 cannot be the shortest possible timeframe for

requiring compliance with I/M in Virginia because Pennsylvania has

shown and EPA approved that it will achieve the needed I/M reductions

by 1998.

Response: The case law cited by the commenter considers various

circumstances, such as failure by EPA to promulgate rules on the

statutorily mandated deadline or to take action on state failures to

make SIP submissions on the statutorily mandated deadline. See, e.g.,

Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 22 F.3d 1125 (D.C. Cir.

1994), Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C.

Cir. 1975). These cases articulate various formulations of the

standards by which the courts establish new deadlines. EPA believes

that its formulation of the

[[Page 34001]]

standard by which States must achieve the 15% reductions--``as soon as

practicable''--is generally consistent with the case law.

Further, EPA believes that Virginia has demonstrated that it has

met this standard. The notice of proposed rulemaking, the TSD

accompanying that proposal, and an addendum to the TSD in the record

establish that implementation of the I/M program is as soon as

practicable. The main reason for the delays in the development and

implementation of Virginia's 15% SIP relate to its enhanced I/M plan.

Most recently, these enhanced I/M delays were closely associated with

the enactment, in November 1995, of the NHSDA. The NHSDA afforded

states the opportunity to revise their I/M plans in a manner that would

be treated as meeting certain EPA requirements on an interim basis. The

NHSDA provided additional time for the Commonwealth and EPA to develop

and process the revised I/M plans. The Commonwealth acted expeditiously

in developing and implementing a revised enhanced I/M program. However,

the amount of time necessary to develop and implement the NHSDA I/M

program rendered impossible achieving the 15% reduction target by the

end of 1996.

Moreover, EPA has reviewed other VOC SIP measures that are at least

theoretically available to Virginia, and has concluded that

implementation of any such measures that might be appropriate would not

accelerate the date of achieving the 15% reductions.

EPA agrees with the commenter that in this particular case a fixed

deadline is appropriate. Accordingly, EPA will establish November 15,

1999, as the date by which the 15% measures must be implemented to the

extent necessary to generate the required amount of reductions.

The fact that Pennsylvania has developed an I/M program that will

be implemented by the end of 1998 does not mean that Virginia's

implementation date of the end of 1999 is not as soon as practicable.

For reasons indicated elsewhere in the record, EPA considers the

biennial I/M program selected by Virginia to be as soon as practicable,

notwithstanding the fact that other states may choose to implement an

annual program. An annual program carries certain practicability

problems that EPA has identified elsewhere in the record.

Comment 4

SCLDF commented that any further delays in implementing VOC control

measures, including most prominently, enhanced I/M, must not be

tolerated. For I/M, EPA's deadline must require implementation in the

shortest time in which it is logistically possible to get the testing

systems up and running. The NHSDA does not mention the 15% plan or

authorize any delay of the achievement of the 15% emission reduction.

Furthermore, missing the November 15, 1996 deadline unlawfully rewards

states for failure to meet the deadline by giving them increased

credits under national programs such as the Tier I Federal Motor

Vehicle Control Program. SCLDF argues that such an approach unlawfully

delays the achievement of clean air by allowing the states to reduce

their own emission control efforts by the amount of the post-November

1996 fleet turnover benefits. Consequently, EPA must deny the post-

November 1996 Tier I credit and require states to adopt emission

reductions to compensate for post-1996 growth in vehicle miles traveled

(VMT).

SCLDF further argues that EPA cannot delay the section 182(b)(1)

requirement for states to account for growth in the 15% plans to the

Post 1996 rate-of-progress plans, particularly because the Post 1996

plans involve potential NOX substitution that is not

permitted in the VOC-only 15% plans.

Response: EPA disagrees with the comment. The NHSDA was enacted by

Congress in November of 1995. Section 348 of this statute provided

states' renewed opportunity to satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements

related to the network design for I/M programs. States were not only

granted the flexibility to enact test-and-repair programs, but were

provided additional time to develop those programs and to submit

proposed regulations for interim SIP approval. Virginia moved rapidly

to propose I/M regulations and to submit to EPA on March 27, 1996 a SIP

containing those regulations, under the authority granted by the NHSDA.

Under the terms of the 15% requirement in section 182(b)(1)(A)(i)

of the Act, the SIP must--``provide for [VOC] emission reductions,

within 6 years after the date of enactment of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, of at least 15 percent from baseline emissions,

accounting for any growth in emissions after [1990].''

EPA interprets this provision to require that a specific amount of

VOC reductions occur, and has issued guidance for computing this

amount. The Commonwealth, complying with this guidance, has determined

the amount of the required VOC reductions needed to meet the 15% goal.

It is no longer possible for the Commonwealth to implement measures to

achieve this level of reduction as the November 15, 1996 date provided

under the 15% provisions has passed. Accordingly, EPA believes that the

Commonwealth will comply with the statutory mandate as long as Virginia

achieves the requisite level of reductions on an as-soon-as-practicable

basis after 1996. In computing the reductions, EPA believes it

acceptable for states to count reductions from federal measures, such

as vehicle turnover, that occur after November 15, 1996, as long as

they are measures that would be creditable had they occurred prior to

that date. These measures result in VOC emission reductions as directed

by Congress in the Act; therefore, these measures should count towards

the achievement--however delayed--of the 15% VOC reduction goal.

EPA does not believe states are obligated as part of the 15% SIP to

implement further VOC reductions to offset increases in VOC emissions

due to post-1996 growth. As noted above, the 15% requirement mandates a

specific level of reductions. By counting the reductions that occur

through measures implemented pre- and post-1996, SIPs may achieve this

level of reductions. Although section 182(b)(1)(A)(i), quoted above,

mandates that the SIPs account for growth after 1990, the provision

does not, by its terms, establish a mechanism for how to account for

growth, or indicate whether, under the present circumstances, post-1996

growth must be accounted for. EPA believes that its current

requirements for the 15% SIPs meet section 182(b)(1)(A)(i). In

addition, although post-1996 VOC growth is not offset under the 15%

SIPs, such growth must be offset in the Post 1996 plans required for

serious and higher classified areas to achieve 9% in VOC reductions

every three years after 1996 (until the attainment date). Virginia's

Post 1996 plan for the Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan

Washington D.C. area, which is nearing completion, does appear to

achieve the 9% emissions reductions required between 1996 and 1999,

taking into account growth in VOCs during that time. The fact that

these Post 1996 SIPs may substitute NOX reductions for VOC

reductions in the 1996 to 1999 period does not undermine the integrity

of the 15% SIPs. Allowing NOX substitution is fully

consistent with the health goals of the Clean Air Act.

Under EPA's approach, post-1996 growth will be accounted for in the

plans that Congress intended to take account of such growth--the Post

1996 ``rate of progress'' SIPs. To shift the burden of accounting for

such growth to the 15% plans, as commenters would have EPA do, would

impose burdens on

[[Page 34002]]

states above and beyond what Congress contemplated would be imposed by

the 15% requirement (which was intended to have been achieved by

November 15, 1996). In the current situation, where it is clearly

impossible to achieve the target level of VOC reductions (a 15%

reduction taking into account growth through November 1996) by November

1996, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable and appropriate

one. It will still mean that post-1996 growth is taken into account in

the SIP revisions Congress intended to take into account such growth

and it means that the target level of VOC reductions will be achieved

as soon as practicable. Once the Post 1996 rate of progress plans are

approved and implemented, areas will have achieved the same level of

progress that they were required to have achieved through the

combination of the 15% and rate of progress requirements as originally

intended by Congress.

Comment 5

The commenter notes a discrepancy on the bottom of page 11401 of

the notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA asserted it's belief that the

Virginia I/M program ``will achieve 24.6 tons/day of reductions by

1997''. This is unrealistic given that EPA states elsewhere in the

notice that the Virginia I/M program is not starting up until November

1997.

Response: The commenter is correct. The notice of proposed

rulemaking contained a typographical error in that the year should have

read 1999 instead of 1997. This statement in the proposed rulemaking is

corrected and revised to read: ``Because Virginia's revised enhanced 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 original 15% plan,

EPA believes that Virginia's program will achieve 24.6 tons/day of

reductions by 1999.''

Comment 6

SCLDF commented that the Virginia 15% plan, which takes credit for

federal control measures such as architectural and industrial

maintenance coating, consumer/commercial products and autobody

refinishing, should not be approved because those federal control

measures have not yet been promulgated. SCLDF states that allowing such

credit violates section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act. SCLDF further

commented that EPA cannot lawfully base SIP decisions on unpromulgated

rules because it does not know what these final rules will say. SCLDF

contends that allowing credit on as yet unpromulgated rules, even with

the caveat that the states must revisit the rule later if the federal

rules turn out differently than predicted, amounts to an unlawful

extension of a SIP submission deadline. SCLDF stated that EPA must base

its decision on the record before it at the time of its decision; not

on some record that the agency hopes will exist in the future.

Response: Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires states to submit

their 15% SIP revisions by November, 1993. Section 182(b)(1)(C) of the

Act provides the following general rule for creditability of emissions

reductions towards the 15% requirement: ``Emissions reductions are

creditable toward the 15 percent required * * * to the extent they have

actually occurred, as of (November, 1996), from the implementation of

measures required under the applicable implementation plan, rules

promulgated by the Administrator, or a permit under Title V.''

This provision further indicates that certain emissions reductions

are not creditable, including reductions from certain control measures

required prior to the 1990 Amendments.

This creditability provision is ambiguous. Read literally, it

provides that although the 15% SIPs are required to be submitted by

November 1993, emissions reductions are creditable as part of those

SIPs only if ``they have actually occurred, as of (November 1996)''.

This literal reading renders the provision internally inconsistent.

Accordingly, EPA believes that the provision should be interpreted to

provide, in effect, that emissions reductions are creditable ``to the

extent they will have actually occurred, as of (November, 1996), from

the implementation of (the specified measures)'' (the term ``will'' is

added). This interpretation renders the provision internally

consistent.

Sec. 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act explicitly includes as creditable

reductions those resulting from ``rules promulgated by the

Administrator''. This provision does not state the date by which those

measures must be promulgated, i.e., does not indicate whether the

measures must be promulgated by the time the 15% SIPs were due

(November, 1993), or whether the measures may be promulgated after this

due date.

Because the statute is silent on this point, EPA has discretion to

develop a reasonable interpretation, under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC,

467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). EPA believes it

reasonable to interpret section 182(b)(1)(C) of the Act to credit

reductions from federal measures as long as those reductions are

expected to occur by November 1996, even if the Federal measures are

not promulgated by the November 1993 due date for the 15% SIPs.

EPA's interpretation is consistent with the congressionally

mandated schedule for promulgating regulations for consumer and

commercial products, under section 182(e) of the Act. This provision

requires EPA to promulgate regulations controlling emissions from

consumer and commercial products that generate emissions in

nonattainment areas. Under the schedule, by November 1993--the same

date that the States were required to submit the 15% SIPs--EPA was to

issue a report and establish a rulemaking schedule for consumer and

commercial products. Further, EPA was to promulgate regulations for the

first set of consumer and commercial products by November, 1995. It is

reasonable to conclude that Congress anticipated that reductions from

these measures would be creditable as part of the 15% SIPs, as long as

those reductions were to occur by November, 1996.

Crediting reductions from federal measures promulgated after the

due date for the 15% SIPs is also sensible from an administrative

standpoint. Crediting the reductions allows the states to plan

accurately to meet the 15% reduction target from the appropriate level

of state and federal measures. Not crediting such reductions would mean

that the states would have to implement additional control requirements

to reach the 15% mark; and that SIPs would result in more than a 15%

level of reductions once the federal measures in question were

promulgated and implemented. At that point in time, the state may seek

to eliminate those additional SIP measures on grounds that they would

no longer be necessary to reach the 15% level. Such constant revisions

to the SIP to demonstrate 15% is a paper exercise that exhausts both

the states' and EPA's time and resources.

The fact that EPA cannot determine precisely the amount of credit

available for the federal measures not yet promulgated does not

preclude granting the credit. The credit can be granted as long as EPA

is able to develop reasonable estimates of the amount of VOC reductions

from the measures EPA expects to promulgate. EPA believes that it is

able to develop reasonable estimates, particularly because it has

already proposed and taken comment on the measures at issue, and

expects to promulgate final rules by the spring of 1998. Many other

parts of the SIP, including state measures, typically

[[Page 34003]]

include estimates and assumptions concerning VOC amounts, rather than

actual measurements. For example, EPA's document to estimate emissions,

(``Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors'', January 1995, AP-

42), provide emission factors used to estimate emissions from various

sources and source processes. AP-42 emission factors have been used,

and continue to be used, by states and EPA to determine base year

emission inventory figures for sources and to estimate emissions from

sources where such information is needed. Estimates in the expected

amount of VOC reductions are commonly made in air quality plans, even

for those control measures that are already promulgated.

Moreover, the fact that EPA is occasionally delayed in its

rulemaking is not an argument against granting credits from these

measures. The measures are statutorily required, and states and

citizens could bring suit to enforce the requirements that EPA

promulgate them. If the amount of credit that EPA allows the state to

claim turns out to be greater than the amount EPA determines to be

appropriate when EPA promulgates the federal measures, EPA intends to

take appropriate action to require correction of any shortfall in

necessary emissions reductions that may occur.

The above analysis focuses on the statutory provisions that include

specific dates for 15% SIP submittals (November, 1993), and

implementation (November 15, 1996). These dates have expired, and EPA

has developed new dates for submittal and implementation. EPA does not

believe that the expiration of the statutory dates, and the development

of new ones, has implications for the issue of whether reductions from

federal measures promulgated after the date of 15% SIP approval may be

counted toward those 15% SIPs. Although the statutory dates have

passed, EPA believes that the analysis described above continues to be

valid.

Comment 7

SCLDF commented that EPA proposed disapproval of the Philadelphia

15% plan in 1996 because the plan assumed credit from control

strategies either not fully adopted, not creditable under the Clean Air

Act, or which had not been adequately quantified. Furthermore, EPA

proposed disapproval of the plan because Pennsylvania switched I/M

programs yet did not revise the 15% plan to reflect the differences in

the I/M program description and projected emission reductions. EPA set

precedence with this rulemaking and to propose approval of the Virginia

15% plan when the same deficiencies exist is acting in an arbitrary and

capricious manner of treating similar situations in such a

diametrically opposite fashion.

Response: EPA's proposed approval of the Virginia 15% plan is not

inconsistent with the proposed disapproval of the Philadelphia 15%

plan. On July 10, 1996, EPA proposed to disapprove Pennsylvania's 15%

plan for the Philadelphia area because it would not have achieved

sufficient reductions to meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of

the Act (61 FR 36320). EPA did not credit any reductions from

Pennsylvania's Enhanced iI/M Program because at the time of the July

10, 1996 rulemaking EPA had disapproved Pennsylvania's I/M

submittal.1 As discussed above, on May 15, 1997, EPA granted

conditional interim approval of Virginia's I/M program in the Virginia

SIP (62 FR 26745). Therefore, the factual basis for EPA's conditional

interim approval of Virginia's 15% is not similar to that of the

Philadelphia 15% Plan. In the July 10, 1996 proposed disapproval, EPA

credited the measures in Pennsylvania's 15% Plan towards meeting the

rate of progress requirements of the Act even though they were

insufficiently documented to qualify for full approval. See, 61 FR

36322. That action is wholly consistent with EPA's conditional interim

approval of the Virginia 15% plan.

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

\1\ In a letter, dated April 13, 1995, EPA converted the August

31, 1994 conditional approval of Pennsylvania I/M submittal to a

disapproval.

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

Comment 8

NYSDEC commented that EPA should not be treating this as a Table 3

SIP action, because the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund settlement

regarding 15% plans in the Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C.

ozone nonattainment areas has national policy implications.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Delegation authority is

an internal agency decision. This rulemaking action is consistent with

EPA delegation policy. The authority for decision making and signature

of all SIP revisions has been delegated to the Regional Administrators.

Comment 9

NYSDEC commented that EPA should propose limited approval/limited

disapproval of this SIP because of its technical defects.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Historically, the Agency

has used both conditional approval and limited approval/disapproval

actions for SIP revisions with technical deficiencies. EPA has the

authority to grant conditional approvals at least when EPA has a

reasonable basis to believe that the information to correct these

deficiencies is available and can be implemented by the state within a

12-month period. EPA has a reasonable basis to believe that the

Commonwealth of the Virginia has the ability to and will correct the

deficiencies conditioned in the 15% plan. The Commonwealth has taken a

revised 15% plan through the public hearing process which addresses

many of the named deficiencies. Furthermore, Virginia has submitted a

commitment letter agreeing to meet the conditions of the conditional

approval and correct the 15% plan within 12 months of this rulemaking.

Comment 10

NYSDEC commented that EPA should have addressed the contingency

measure requirements of the Clean Air Act in this rulemaking.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Under section 172(b) of

the Act, areas classified as nonattainment must include in their

nonattainment plan provisions, contingency measures to be implemented

if an area fails to make reasonable further progress or attain the

standard by the applicable attainment date. In addition, section

182(c)(9) of the Act requires areas classified as serious and above to

include in their nonattainment SIP contingency measures to be

implemented if a reasonable further progress (RFP) milestone is not

achieved.

EPA interprets the provisions of sections 172(b) and 182(c)(9), on

the one hand; and section 182(b)(1)(A) [the 15% plan requirement], on

the other hand, to be separate and independent provisions within the

Act. Therefore, this rulemaking addresses EPA's action on the May 15,

1995 15% plan submittal only as it adheres to the requirements of

Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act. There is no obligation to act on the

contingency measure requirement in this rulemaking. Any submittal that

the Commonwealth submits to EPA regarding the contingency measure

requirements of section 172(b) of the Act will be handled under a

separate rulemaking action.

Comment 11

NYSDEC commented that the redesign of the Virginia I/M test and

repair program claims an effectiveness of 93% relative to a centralized

program. This implies that the existing

[[Page 34004]]

basic test and repair program effectiveness is greater than 50%. The

effectiveness of the existing program needs to be re-evaluated and the

base year inventory and 1996 target levels adjusted to reflect the

revised effectiveness.

Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the

Commonwealth should have to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the

existing program. Requiring recalculation of the baseline at this point

in time would effectively be requiring the states to hit a moving

target, something which EPA feels Congress did not intend to happen as

a result of the latitude afforded to states under the NHSDA. EPA is

willing to allow states to rely on the baseline modeling previously

done for the 15% plans, even though the Commonwealth's assessment of

the existing program provides evidence to say that the program was more

effective than previously demonstrated through modeling. EPA believes a

recalculation of the I/M baseline credits would be an unreasonable

burden to place on states because the information that suggests the

need for recalculation did not become available until well after

Virginia completed the 15% calculations and submitted the SIP to EPA

for approval. See discussion below under comment 16 regarding

calculation of credits for open burning.

Comment 12

NYSDEC commented that the viability of the cited 24.6 tons/day

reduction from Virginia I/M is questionable. The Virginia I/M program

is similar to the New York I/M program, yet the New York program is an

annual one. EPA Region III has allowed Virginia to claim greater credit

for their I/M program than Region II has allowed New York to do. This

constitutes regional inconsistency. EPA is treating the Virginia I/M

program more favorably than the New York I/M program by allowing

greater credit for a more deficient program.

Response: EPA has granted conditional interim approval to

Virginia's I/M program under NHSDA. Although the SIP approved I/M

program differs from the program referred to in Virginia's 15% plan,

EPA has determined that the two programs will ultimately achieve a

similar amount of credit. As a condition of this rulemaking however,

Virginia is required to remodel the credits achieved from its I/M

program using the appropriate inputs which accurately reflect the newly

designed program under the NHSDA. Full approval of the 15% plan is

conditioned upon this demonstration of credit through remodeling. The

24.6 tons/day reduction is, therefore, only conditionally approved

until the demonstration is submitted by Virginia as required under

NHSDA.

Virginia has committed to complete a remodeling demonstration in

accordance with EPA policy on I/M modeling. Virginia has not been

allowed to deviate from EPA-accepted modeling practices, in fact the

Commonwealth will be required to remodel the program as designed and

implemented, using the credit deck specified for its ASM test

procedure, as directed by EPA. The 15% I/M credits for both the New

York program and the Virginia program are calculated with respect to

not only the I/M program performance standard, but more importantly in

conjunction with the amount and type of VMT for each area. EPA does not

lend any credibility to New York's argument that EPA is allowing

Virginia to take greater credit with modeling EPA Region II would find

insufficient. The premise of New York's comment is that EPA has made a

decision regarding the amount of creditable emission reductions from

New York's I/M program. In fact, New York State has not yet submitted a

15% plan and EPA has not made a decision regarding the amount of

creditable reduction from the New York I/M program. Once New York

submits a 15% plan, EPA will evaluate the amount of credit from New

York's I/M program. Furthermore, Virginia has moved forward with final

regulations for an I/M program that has been granted final conditional

interim approval, and which is slated to begin start-up by November

1997.

Comment 13

NYSDEC commented that EPA cannot allow credit from an I/M program

outside the nonattainment area (Facquier County).

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. As a preliminary matter,

EPA originally relied on policy established in guidance documents for

the preparation of 15% plans in allowing creditable reductions from the

implementation of I/M in Facquier County, a county adjacent to but not

part of the nonattainment area.

Specifically, Appendix F (F-10) of ``Guidance For Growth Factors,

Projections, And Control of Strategies For The 15 Percent Rate-Of-

Progress Plans'' [EPA-452/R-93-002, March 1993] provides examples of

additional mobile source controls which will achieve creditable

emissions reductions necessary to meet 15 percent requirements, net of

growth. One example shown is a ``basic I/M program imposed in areas

adjacent to the nonattainment area to control emissions from vehicles

that commute into the nonattainment area. States should rely primarily

on traffic counts to verify the commute traffic information for the

nonattainment area.'' The Commonwealth of Virginia initially made such

a showing using the Mobile 5.0a model to determine the amount of

creditable reductions to be achieved by implementing I/M in adjacent

Facquier County. Therefore, EPA proposed to approve the 0.9 tons/day

reduction creditable through this measure.

However, since the proposed rulemaking was published, EPA has

subsequently learned from the Commonwealth that I/M will not in fact be

implemented in Facquier County, Virginia. The Commonwealth has removed

this measure from the draft revised 15% plan that it has taken to

public hearing. The Commonwealth is no longer claiming a 0.9 tons/day

reduction from I/M in Facquier County as a creditable measure in the

revised 15% plan. In response, EPA is not approving the 0.9 tons/day

credits in the conditionally approved 15% plan for northern Virginia.

In its commitment letter of April 4, 1997 the Commonwealth agreed to

submit an amended 15% plan as a SIP revision that will demonstrate

using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit calculations

that the 54.5 tons/day emissions reduction, supported through

creditable emissions reduction control measures, satisfies Virginia's

15% rate of progress requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.

nonattainment area. EPA interprets this commitment to mean that

Virginia will demonstrate in the revised 15% plan submittal that the

area will have achieved a 15% reduction in VOCs net of growth, not

including the credit initially claimed for I/M in Facquier County.

Comment 14

NYSDEC commented that the discrepancies in the inventory and growth

projections in the Virginia plan are significant and EPA should not

dismiss these.

Response: EPA is not dismissing the discrepancies in the May 15,

1995 submittal. EPA noted the differences in the numbers for the mobile

source category between the base year 1990 inventory and the 15% plan

inventory. EPA determined that the discrepancies are insignificant and

can be attributed to rounding errors in the inventory development

process. Additionally, the Commonwealth is submitting revisions to the

1990 base year inventory for the Northern Virginia portion of the

[[Page 34005]]

Washington D.C. nonattainment area as part of the revised 15% plan that

went to public hearing. These revisions to the 1990 base year inventory

will be reviewed and acted upon once the submittal is made.

Regarding growth projections, EPA is conditioning approval of the

plan and requiring Virginia to revise its growth estimates as a

condition for full approval. Revising the plan to account for growth in

point sources between 1990 and 1996 will, in fact, change the budget

contained in the 15% plan and the amount of emission reductions

required to offset growth. EPA has also conditioned full approval of

the 15% plan on a demonstration to be provided by Virginia that point

source growth be determined and offset with an equivalent amount of

emission reductions.

Comment 15

NYSDEC commented that the Stage I credits in Loudoun County should

not be allowed; this was a noncreditable reasonably available control

technology (RACT) fix-up.

Response: The commenter is correct in this statement. Virginia

claimed a total of 0.5 tons/day emission reduction from the

implementation of Stage I controls in Loudoun and Stafford counties in

the nonattainment area. In 1988 EPA made a SIP call to the Commonwealth

of Virginia to among other requirements, require Stage I VOC controls

in Loudoun County. This was, in fact, part of the RACT Fix-Ups SIP

call. The Act does not allow reductions from RACT Fix-Ups to be

creditable toward the 15% plans. Therefore, the 0.23 tons/day emissions

reductions associated with implementing Stage I controls in Loudoun

County are not creditable toward the Virginia 15% plan, and EPA is not

approving these credits in the conditionally approved 15% plan for

Northern Virginia. However, the remaining 0.26 tons/day associated with

implementing Stage I emission controls in Stafford County are a

creditable reduction in the 15% plan, because Stafford County was added

to the nonattainment area in the 1991 designations and not subject to

the pre-1990 RACT fix-up requirements. In its commitment letter of

April 4, 1997 the Commonwealth agreed to submit an amended 15% plan as

a SIP revision that will demonstrate using appropriate documentation

methodologies and credit calculations that the 54.5 tons/day emissions

reduction, supported through creditable emissions reduction control

measures, satisfies Virginia's 15% rate of progress requirement for the

Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area. EPA interprets this

commitment to mean that the Commonwealth will demonstrate in the

revised 15% plan submittal that the area will have achieved a 15%

reduction in VOCs net of growth, notwithstanding the credit claimed for

implementing Stage I controls in Loudoun County.

The Commonwealth and EPA originally believed that there were no

RACT fix-ups that resulted in emission reductions in the northern

Virginia area and claimed zero in the target level calculation for the

area. Although the effects of this revision to the target level may be

minimal and insignificant, nevertheless, Stage I reductions in Loudoun

County should be deducted from the target level in accordance with EPA

guidance and policy on target level calculations. EPA interprets

Virginia's commitment letter to mean that Virginia will recalculate the

target level for the northern Virginia area to account for these

reductions from the RACT fix-up rule.

Comment 16

NYSDEC commented that the inventory data and emission factors for

open burning do not support Virginia's claim of 2.6 tons/day credit.

Response: EPA does not agree with this comment. The Commonwealth of

Virginia used the available data at the time to compute emission

reductions from controls on open burning. Additional information

regarding the emissions inventory for the open burning category can be

found in Virginia's SIP submittal for the 1990 Base Year VOC Emissions

Inventory for the area, which EPA approved on September 16, 1996. Using

information from the inventory and the appropriate methodology at the

time from EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42),

Fourth Edition (1987), EPA has determined that Virginia correctly

computed the amount of emission reductions resulting from the open

burning control strategy. Virginia's open burning rule bans all burning

of construction waste, debris waste and demolition waste.

Using information collected through permits issued for open

burning, Virginia estimates that 1,824 acres are burned annually in the

nonattainment area. The fuel loading factor of 70 tons/acre was taken

from AP-42, Table 2.4-5, category ``forest residues--unspecified'' (the

appropriate category for landclearing debris associated with

construction projects). The VOC emission factor of 19 lbs/ton burned

(nonmethane emissions) 2 was taken from the same table.

\2\ According to AP-42, nonmethane VOC emissions from

unspecified forest residues could include olefins, acetylene,

aldehydes, ketones, aromatics, cycloparaffins, and other saturates.

Not all VOC emissions are necessarily ozone precursors. However, in

the absence of more specific information and for the purposes of

emissions inventory development, all non-methane VOC emissions from

open burning categories are assumed to be ozone precursors.

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

1824 acres/year * 1 year/365days * 70 tons/acre fuel = 349.9 tons/day

burned

349.9 tons/day * 19 lbs/ton VOC * .0005 tons/1 lb = 3.32 lbs VOC/day

emission

The Fourth Edition (1987) of AP-42 was the current edition when the

Commonwealth prepared the 1990 base year inventory and the 15% plan.

EPA's applicable guidance does not require that a base year inventory,

target level calculation and, hence, other aspects of a 15% plan be

revisited due to insignificant changes in emission factors that become

available after submission of the plan. 3 The Commonwealth

of Virginia took the 15% plan to hearing in November 1993. The

commenter quotes information from the Fifth Edition of AP-42 which was

released during 1995 well after preparation and submission of the 15%

plan.

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

\3\ See section 2.3 of ``Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year

Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for 15 Percent Rate of

Progress Plans'' (EPA-452/R-92-005, October 1992); and ``State

Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Proposed Rule'', 57

Federal Register 13498 and 13508 (April 16, 1992).

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

The 15% plan for the Northern Virginia portion of the Washington

D.C. nonattainment area claimed no growth in emissions in the open

burning category for the period 1990-1996. Virginia applied the default

rule compliance value of 80% to the 1990 baseline daily emissions of

3.3 tons/day. The resulting estimated emissions reduction from the ban

on open burning is 2.64 tons/day. EPA is approving this amount of

emission reduction credit in the Virginia 15% plan because the

Commonwealth used the appropriate methodology for estimating emissions

and has properly adopted and implemented the open burning rule in the

nonattainment area.

III. Conditional Interim Approval

EPA has evaluated Virginia's May 15, 1995 submittal for consistency

with the Act, applicable EPA regulations, and EPA policy and

determined, as documented in the March 12, 1997 NPR that, on its face,

the 15% plan for Northern Virginia portion of the Metropolitan

Washington D.C. area achieves the required 15% VOC

[[Page 34006]]

emission reduction to meet Virginia's portion of the regional multi-

state plan to satisfy the requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the Act.

However, there are measures included in the Virginia 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 Northern Virginia portion of

the Metropolitan Washington D.C. area contains enough of the required

structure to warrant conditional interim approval. EPA cannot grant

full approval of the Virginia 15% rate-of-progress plan under section

110(k)(3) and Part D of the Clean Air Act. Instead, EPA is granting

conditional interim approval of this SIP revision under section

110(k)(4) of the Act, because the Commonwealth must meet the specified

conditions and supplement its submittal to satisfy the requirements of

section 182(b)(1) of the Act regarding the 15 percent rate-of-progress

plan, and because the Commonwealth must supplement its submittal and

demonstrate it has achieved the required emission reductions.

The March 12, 1997 NPR listed the conditions that Virginia must

meet in order to convert the conditional approval to full approval. In

an April 4, 1997 letter to EPA, the Commonwealth committed to meet all

the conditions listed in the NPR within 12 months of final conditional

approval. The conditions from the NPR are restated here. The

Commonwealth of Virginia must fulfill the following conditions by no

later than June 24, 1998:

1. Virginia's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in

point sources from 1990-1996.

2. Virginia must meet the conditions listed in the November 6, 1996

proposed conditional interim Inspection and Maintenance Plan (I/M)

rulemaking notice, and 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 Percent VOC Reductions from I/M in 1999--

Supplemental Guidance'', memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally

Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.

3. Virginia must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable

reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.

4. Virginia must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with a

demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and credit

calculations that the 54.5 tons/day reduction, supported through

creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies

Virginia's 15% ROP requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.

nonattainment area.

After making all the necessary corrections to establish the

creditability of chosen control measures, Virginia must demonstrate

that 15% emission reduction is obtained in the Northern Virginia

portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. nonattainment area as

required by section 182(b)(1) of the Act and in accordance with EPA's

policies and guidance issued pursuant to section 182(b)(1).

IV. Final Action

EPA is today granting conditional interim approval of the Northern

Virginia 15% plan as a revision to the Virginia SIP. EPA is granting

approval to emission credits for the Virginia 15% plan on an interim

basis, pending verification of Virginia's I/M program's performance,

pursuant to section 348 of the NHSDA. The interim approval of the 15%

plan will expire at the end of 18 months following EPA's final

conditional interim rulemaking of Virginia's I/M program which was

published in the Federal Register on May 15, 1997. The interim approval

will be replaced by appropriate EPA action based on the evaluation EPA

receives concerning the I/M program's performance. If the evaluation

indicates a shortfall in emission reductions compared to the remodeling

that the 15% plan is conditioned on, the Commonwealth will need to find

additional emission credits. Failure of the Commonwealth to make up for

an emission shortfall from the enhanced I/M program may subject the

Commonwealth to sanctions and imposition of a Federal Implementation

Plan. EPA has already approved the Virginia enhanced I/M program on a

conditional interim basis. This approval of the Virginia enhanced I/M

program was taken under section 110 of the Act and, although the

credits provided by this program may expire, the approval of the I/M

regulations does not expire. As explained above, the credits provided

by the enhanced I/M program on an interim basis for the 15% plan may be

adjusted based on EPA's evaluation of the enhanced I/M program's

performance.

This rulemaking action is a conditional interim approval that will

not convert to full approval until Virginia has met conditions 1

through 4 of this rulemaking. If the conditions are not met within 12

months of today's rulemaking, this rulemaking will convert to a

disapproval. Once Virginia satisfies the conditions of the I/M

rulemaking and receives final interim approval of I/M, EPA will grant

final interim approval of the 15% plan, (assuming that the other

conditions have been met). Conversely, if EPA disapproves the Virginia

I/M program, EPA's conditional interim approval of the 15% plan would

also convert to a disapproval. EPA would notify Virginia by letter that

the conditions have not been met and that the conditional interim

approval of the 15% plan has converted to a disapproval. Each of the

conditions must be fulfilled by Virginia and submitted to EPA as an

amendment to the SIP. If Virginia corrects the deficiencies within one

year of conditional interim approval, and submits a revised 15% plan as

a SIP revision, EPA will conduct rulemaking on that revision.

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.

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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the

Clean Air Act 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, the 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

[[Page 34007]]

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).

Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Act 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 does 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 promulgated 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.

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report

containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the

General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's

Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for

judicial review of this action, pertaining to the final conditional

interim approval of the 15% plan for the Northern Virginia portion of

the metropolitan Washington D.C. area, must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 25, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this

final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes

of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the

effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged

later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Ozone.

Dated: June 13, 1997.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart VV--Virginia

2. Section 52.2450 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.2450 Conditional approval.

* * * * *

(e) The Commonwealth of Virginia's May 15, 1995 submittal for the

15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan (15% plan) for the Northern Virginia

portion of the Metropolitan Washington D.C. ozone nonattainment area,

is conditionally approved based on certain contingencies, for an

interim period. The conditions for approvability are as follows:

(1) Virginia's 15% plan must be revised to account for growth in

point sources from 1990-1996.

(2) Virginia must meet the conditions listed in the November 6,

1996 proposed conditional interim Inspection and Maintenance Plan (I/M)

rulemaking notice, 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 Percent VOC Reductions from I/M in 1999--

Supplemental Guidance'', memorandum from Gay MacGregor and Sally

Shaver, dated December 23, 1996.

(3) Virginia must remodel to determine affirmatively the creditable

reductions from RFG, and Tier 1 in accordance with EPA guidance.

(4) Virginia must submit a SIP revision amending the 15% plan with

a demonstration using appropriate documentation methodologies and

credit calculations that the 54.5 tons/day reduction, supported through

creditable emission reduction measures in the submittal, satisfies

Virginia's 15% ROP requirement for the Metropolitan Washington D.C.

nonattainment area.

[FR Doc. 97-16510 Filed 6-23-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P