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

Federal RegisterAug 5, 1997

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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.