Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; District of Columbia; 15 Percent Plan for the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area

Federal RegisterJul 7, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[SIPTRAX NO. DC-25-2010a; FRL-6120-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

District of Columbia; 15 Percent Plan for the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting conditional approval of a State Implementation

Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the District of Columbia (the

District) to meet the 15 percent reasonable further progress

implementation plan (15% plan) requirements of the Clean Air Act (the

Act) for the District's portion of the Metropolitan Washington, D.C.

ozone nonattainment area. EPA is granting conditional approval because

the District's enhanced inspection maintenance (I/M) program, which is

one of the many control measures adopted by the District to achieve the

15% reduction in volatile organic compounds (VOC), has only been

conditionally approved, the 15% plan must also be conditionally

approved. The intended effect of this action is to conditionally

approve the 15% plan submitted by the District of Columbia in

accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective on September 8, 1998 without

further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 6, 1998.

If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely document

withdrawing the rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, 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

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,

1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 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 District of Columbia Department of Public Health, Air Quality

Division, 2100 Martin Luther King Ave, S.E., Washington, DC 20020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cripps, Ozone and Mobile

Sources Branch (3AP21), U.S. EPA--Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, or by telephone at (215) 814-2179.

Questions may also be addressed via e-mail, at:

[email protected] [Please note that only written

comments can be accepted for inclusion in the docket.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 16, 1998 the District of Columbia

Department of Health (DoH) submitted a revision to its State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment

area. The revision consists of a plan to achieve a fifteen percent

reduction from 1990 base year levels in volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions. During the summertime months, VOC emissions contribute

significantly to the formation of ground level ozone, and many volatile

organic compounds are also toxic or hazardous air pollutants.

I. Background

The Washington, D.C. metropolitan area is classified as a serious

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

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above to develop plans to

meet specific reasonable further progress, also known as rate-of-

progress (ROP), for the reduction of VOC emissions. Specifically,

section 182(b)(1) requires a SIP revision to reduce by 1996 VOC

emissions by fifteen percent from 1990 baseline levels in the area

while accounting for growth in VOC emissions from 1990 to 1996. These

``15% plans'' were due to be submitted to EPA by November 15, 1993,

with the reductions to occur within 6 years (i.e., November 15, 1996).

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 pursuant to section 211(h) of the Act to lower the

volatility [i.e., Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)] of gasoline. Furthermore,

section 182(b)(1) of the Act does not allow credit towards reasonable

further progress 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 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.

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

entire District of Columbia, five counties in Northern Virginia and

five counties in Maryland. Virginia, Maryland and the District all must

demonstrate reasonable further progress for the Washington, D.C.

nonattainment area. The Commonwealth of Virginia, State of Maryland and

the District of Columbia in conjunction with municipal planning

organizations collaborated on a coordinated 15% plan for the entire

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. nonattainment area (regional 15% plan).

This was done under the auspices of the regional air quality planning

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

and with the assistance of the local municipal planning organization,

the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), to ensure

coordination of air quality and transportation planning.1

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

\1\The Act addresses interstate coordination for inter-state

nonattainment areas (42 U.S.C. 7504) mainly for nonattainment

planning. Because the interstate air quality planning organization

involved, the MWAQC, meets the requirements of section 174 of the

Act, EPA believes all interstate coordination requirements have been

fulfilled. In the absence of an agreement to prepare a nonattainment

area-wide plan, each state could have developed and submitted a SIP

revision to obtain the 15% reasonable further progress requirement

independently of the others. The MWAQC process also ensures that the

consultation between air quality and transportation planning

agencies is performed as required under the Act (42 U.S.C. 7506(c))

and under EPA's transportation conformity final rule (40 CFR

93.100).

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

Although the plan was developed by a regional approach, each

jurisdiction is required to submit its 15% plan to EPA as a revision to

its SIP.

Because the reasonable further progress requirements such as the

15% plan affect transportation improvement plans, municipal planning

organizations have historically been heavily involved in air quality

planning in the

[[Page 36579]]

Washington, D.C. area. As explained in further detail below, the

regional 15% plan determined the regional target level, regional

projections of growth and finally the total amount of creditable

reductions required under the reasonable further progress requirement

in the entire Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment area. The three

jurisdictions, the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth of Virginia and

the District agreed to apportion this total amount of required

creditable reductions among the three jurisdictions. EPA is taking

action today only on the District's 15% plan submittal, which addresses

only the District's responsibility for the 15% plan in the Washington,

D.C. metropolitan area.

The 15% plan for the District of Columbia was submitted by the

Mayor's designated official, the Director of the District of Columbia

DoH, on April 16, 1998. The April 16, 1998 submittal effectively

superseded previous submittals. On May 15, 1995, the District submitted

a 15% plan SIP for the District's portion of Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area. On November 3, 1997 the District submitted a Phase

I attainment plan which included revisions to the 1990 base year

inventory and to the 15% plan SIP revision. This amended 15% plan SIP

revision was based upon the revised 1990 base year emissions inventory

and upon revised projections in growth in emissions which came to light

during the preparation of the Phase I attainment plan. The November 3,

1997 15% plan SIP revision did not however reflect changes in the

District's motor vehicle enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M)

program. The April 16, 1998 15% plan SIP revision does reflect the

District's current enhanced I/M program.

EPA has reviewed the District's April 16, 1998 15% plan SIP

revision, and a single factor prevents a full approval of the District

of Columbia's 15% plan SIP. A detailed discussion of the EPA's analysis

of the District's 15% plan SIP revision is included below in the

`Analysis' portion of this rulemaking action and also in the technical

support document (TSD) for this action. (Copies of the TSD are

available, upon request, from the EPA Regional Office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this notice.) Because this one measure, the

District's enhanced I/M program, has been conditionally approved into

the District of Columbia's SIP, under section 182(b)(2)(D), EPA can

only grant a conditional approval of the emission reduction credits for

this measure and, therefore, can only grant conditional approval of the

District of Columbia's 15% plan SIP revision. Satisfying the condition

for full approval of the enhanced I/M program, namely that the April

30, 1999 start date be met, will satisfy the conditional approval of

the District's 15% plan as well.

II. Analysis of the SIP Revision

A. Base Year Emission Inventory

The baseline from which states must determine the required

reductions for 15 percent planning is the 1990 base year emission

inventory. The inventory is broken down into several emissions source

categories: stationary point, area, on-road mobile sources, and off-

road mobile sources. The base year inventory includes emissions of all

sources within the nonattainment area and certain large point sources

within twenty-five miles of the boundary. A sub-set of the 1990 base

year inventory is the 1990 rate-of-progress (ROP) inventory which

includes only anthropogenic (man-made) emissions actually within the

nonattainment area boundaries. The District of Columbia submitted a

formal SIP revision containing its official 1990 base year emission

inventory on January 13, 1993 and submitted revisions on November 3,

1997. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is also

approving the District's November 3, 1997 SIP revision consisting of

revisions to the 1990 base year emission inventory as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in that direct final

rule.

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% reasonable further progress requirement, a

state must enact measures achieving sufficient emissions reductions to

offset projected growth in VOC emissions, in addition to a 15 percent

reduction of VOC emissions. Thus, an estimate of growth in VOC

emissions and emissions related activity from 1990 to 1996 is necessary

for demonstrating reasonable further progress. Growth for all source

categories other than on-road mobile sources, is calculated by

multiplying the 1990 base year inventory by acceptable forecasting

indicators. For these categories, 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,

employment. Population can also serve as an acceptable surrogate

indicator.

Growth for on-road mobile sources is determined projecting future

year vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and speeds using a traffic demand

model that represents the highway network in the Washington, D.C. area.

(The same highway network and traffic demand model is also used for

conformity determinations.) These results are multiplied by emission

factors appropriate for the forecast year that were generated by EPA's

Mobile 5.0b emission factor model.

The District'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

District, please refer to the TSD for this action. EPA is approving the

District's 1990-1996 emissions growth projections.

C. Enhanced Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires that states containing ozone

nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above prepare SIP

revisions that provide for a 15 percent VOC emissions reduction by

November 15, 1996. Most of the 15% plan SIP revisions 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 September 1995, EPA finalized revisions to its enhanced I/M rule

allowing states significant flexibility in designing I/M programs

appropriate for their needs (See 60 FR 48029, September 18, 1995).

Subsequently, Congress enacted the National Highway Systems Designation

Act of 1995 (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,

[[Page 36580]]

secure state legislative approval when necessary, and set up the

infrastructure to perform the testing program has precluded states that

revise their I/M programs from obtaining emission reductions from such

revised programs by November 15, 1996.

The District submitted a SIP revision amending the District's

existing I/M program on July 13, 1995 and supplemented this submittal

on March 27, 1996 under the NHSDA. On October 10, 1996, EPA published a

proposed disapproval of the July 13, 1995 and March 27, 1996 SIP

revisions. The proposed disapproval listed numerous major and minor

deficiencies. On November 27, 1997, the District submitted a completely

revised enhanced I/M SIP revision. The November 27, 1997 enhanced I/M

SIP revision completely revised the testing method from that contained

in the earlier SIP revisions. On March 30, 1998 (63 FR 15118), EPA

proposed to conditionally approve this enhanced I/M SIP revision. EPA

also withdrew its previously proposed disapproval action of an enhanced

I/M SIP revision submitted by the District of Columbia on July 13, 1995

and supplemented March 27, 1996 because that action was no longer

germane, given that the District's submittal of November 27, 1997

completely replaced those earlier submittals. No comments were received

on EPA's proposed conditional approval of the District's enhanced I/M

program. On June 2, 1998, EPA published its final conditional approval

(63 FR 29955).

Given the heavy reliance by many states upon enhanced I/M programs

to help achieve the 15% reduction in VOC emissions required under

section 182(b)(1) of the Act, the recent NHSDA and regulatory changes

regarding enhanced I/M programs, EPA believes that it was not 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% plan SIP revisions would serve no purpose.

Consequently, under certain circumstances, EPA has allowed states that

re-designed their 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

are 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 ``Modeling 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 approving SIP revisions if the emissions

reductions from the revised, enhanced I/M programs, as well as from the

other 15% plan 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 date by which the 15% reduction is

achieved if they provide an insignificant amount of reductions.

The EPA has examined other available SIP measures to determine if

they are practicable for the District's portion of the Washington, D.C.

area and if they would meaningfully accelerate the date by which the

area reaches the 15% level of reductions. The EPA has determined that

the District's SIP does contain the appropriate measures. Measures for

which the District took credit in the 15% plan are identified in Table

1, below, as ``In 15% Plan'' and are not available as a possible

alternative to enhanced I/M. Measures in Table 1 identified as being

``Pre-1990'' were implemented prior to 1990 under rules adopted by the

District and thus are not available as a possible alternative to

enhanced I/M. The other programs that the District included in its 15%

plan submittal result in less than a 1.3 tons per day reduction and do

not deliver in the aggregate, anything close to the reductions achieved

by enhanced I/M.

Table 1.--VOC Control Measures Analyzed in the District's 15 Percent

Plan Submittal Plan

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

VOC reductions (tons/

Measures day)

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

Area Source Measures:

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

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

Solvent Cleaning--Substitution........... 0.1

Graphic Arts--Web Offset Control......... 0.5

Autobody Refinishing--ACT control........ In 15% Plan

Cutback Asphalt--100% Ban................ 0.0

Other Dry Cleaning....................... 0.2

Stage I Enhancement...................... 0.4

Stage II Vapor Recovery.................. Pre-1990

Nonroad--Reformulated Gasoline........... In 15% Plan

Point Source Measures:

Flexographic Printing.................... 0.0

Gravure Printing......................... X) emissions.

However, on November 3, 1997 the District of Columbia submitted a

complete, SIP revision which included reasonable further progress plan

to achieve a nine percent reduction in VOC and NOX emissions

after 1996 (post-1996 plan). This November 3, 1997 SIP revision also

established a VOC budget for 1999 of 123.3 tons per day for on-road

mobile sources for the entire Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area and also establishes a NOX budget for

1999. Under the conformity rule, EPA believes that the VOC and

NOX budgets established by the November 3, 1997 post-1996

plan are currently the controlling budgets for conformity

determinations for 1999 and later years. The next conformity

determination in the Washington, D.C. area will consider only 1999 and

later years. The budget in the post-1996 plan specifically addresses

the 1999 reasonable further progress milestone year whereas the 15%

plan establishes a budget for the prior reasonable further progress

milestone year of 1996. The time period for the budget in the 15% plan

has passed. The post-1996 plan also establishes more stringent VOC

budget than the 15% plan.

J. Summary

EPA's review of this material indicates that the District's 15%

plan SIP revision meets the requirements of the Act and applicable EPA

guidance. EPA is conditionally approving the District of Columbia's SIP

revision for a 15% reduction in VOC emissions, which was submitted on

April 16, 1998.

EPA is approving this rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should

adverse or critical comments be filed. This rule will be effective

September 8, 1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives

adverse comments by August 6, 1998.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule did

not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not

institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If

no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule

will be effective on September 8, 1998 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

III. Final Action

EPA is conditionally approving the revision to the District of

Columbia SIP submitted on April 16, 1998 consisting of its 15% plan.

EPA's approval is conditioned upon the District meeting the April 30,

1999 start date committed to and contained in its November 27, 1997

enhanced I/M SIP revision submittal. The conversion from conditional

approval to full approval or to disapproval will be dependent upon

whether or not the District meets the start date of April 30, 1999

committed to in the enhanced I/M SIP revision. If the District starts

the enhanced I/M testing program on or before April 30, 1999, then any

final conditional approval shall convert to a full approval of the SIP

revision. If the District fails to fully implement enhanced I/M testing

in the District by April 30, 1999, EPA would notify the District by

letter that the condition has not been met and that any final

conditional approval has converted to a disapproval, and the clock for

imposition of sanctions under section 179(a) of the Act would start as

of the date of the letter. Subsequently, a notice would be published in

the Federal Register announcing that the 15% plan SIP revision has been

disapproved.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection

of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because

it is not an ``economically significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,

and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000. Conditional approvals of SIP submittals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.

Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not impose any new

requirements, EPA certifies that it does not have a significant impact

on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility

[[Page 36585]]

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.

C. Unfunded Mandates

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.

D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally

provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating

the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,

to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the

United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior

to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a

``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court

of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 1998. 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 regarding approval of the District of

Columbia's 15% plan SIP revision 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, Ozone.

Dated: June 23, 1998.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52, subpart J of chapter I, title 40 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 et seq.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

2. Section 52.473 is amended by designating the existing paragraph

as (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.473 Conditional Approval.

* * * * *

(b) EPA is conditionally approving as a revision to the District of

Columbia State Implementation Plan the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan

for the District of Columbia's portion of the Metropolitan Washington,

D.C. ozone nonattainment area, submitted by the Director of the

District of Columbia Department of Public Health on April 16, 1998.