REVIEWING PROCEDURES This section outlines the required steps to be take reviewing post 1996 rate of progress plans. The co timeframes allotted for revisions to the plans are discu found in 40 CFR 51 Requirements for Preparation, Ado Plans. The specific requirements for post 1996 rate of pro document.

State Agencies State agencies have the responsibility of compiling the post 1996 rateensure that the plan meets the minimum completeness criteria ( 40 CFR P a plan has been adopted by a State, five copies of the plan are be submit his/ her designee) to the Regional Office of the EPA for review.

A State may want to submit a draft copy of the post 1996 rate of progress plan to comments prior to November 15, 1994 deadline. This will provide an early oppo feedback on the plan. The EPA will not consider submission of requests for parallel p draft plans as official plans in order to meet statutory deadlines. The EPA interprets the requiring rules that are acceptable under the approval options section 110( k).

The EPA is presently amending the completeness criteria to remove the exception for parallel processing and to add an exception for the submission of commitments as allowed under section 110( k)( 4).

Regional Offices The first step in the review process for Regional Offices will be to determine if the post 1996 rate of progress plan meets the completeness criteria outlined in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. The completeness criteria require that within 60 days of EPA's receipt of a plan or plan revision, but not later than 6 months after the date by which a State was required to submit the plan or plan revision,

the EPA shall determine whether completeness criteria have been met. If EPA has not made a completeness determination by 6 months after receipt of the submission, that submission shall on that date be considered to meet the completeness criteria. The completeness criteria require that EPA inform the submitting official by letter if the plan meets the requirements of Appendix V. If a submittal is deemed incomplete, EPA shall notify the State by letter that the submittal is incomplete.

In the letter EPA will request corrective action and identify the components absent or insufficient to perform a review. C 2 When it has bee EPA is required to completeness determ C 3 ADJUSTED BA 1. Was the MOBILE5 FMVCP and RVP?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

2. Does the plan include informatio noncreditable emission reductions fro __ Yes __ No Comments:

3. Was the 1990 adjusted base year inventory calc attainment year to reflect the effects of FMVCP and noncreditable emission reductions from FMVCP and applicable adjusted base year inventories)?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

4. Does the adjusted base year emission inventory include only anthr emanating from within the designated nonattainment area boundaries __ Yes __ No Comments:

5. Does the plan document the target level( s) as well as calculations made in det target level( s)?

__ Yes __ No Comments: 20 The 3 percent per year emissions reduction is averaged over each 3 year period between consecutive milestone dates or the last milestone date and the attainment date.

21 Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections, EPA 450/ 4 019, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. July 1991.

C 4 REQUIRED TO 1. Does the plan demo for each applicable mil __ Yes __ No Comments:

2. Is the required 3 percent per year adjusted base year emission inventor __ Yes __ No Comments:

3. If NO x emission reductions are used in place of V per year requirement, is the substitution consistent __ Yes __ No Comments:

4. If the plan outlined a less than 3 percent per year VOC emiss include all measures that can feasibly be implemented in the area achievability ( including measures that are achieved in practice by so category in nonattainment areas of the next higher classification)? __ Y Comments:

5. Does the plan include a summary of projected VOC ( and NO x where appropria levels for each applicable milestone and attainment date?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

6. Is the EPA guidance document entitled Procedures for Preparing Emissions Projections followed in calculating projected emissions? 21 __ Yes __ No Comments: C 5 7. Does the contr emissions for each strategy provide for emission reductions, an __ Yes __ No Comments:

8. Were emission reductions from R the target levels ( this is not necessary percent rate of progress plan)?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

9. If a State plans to use preenactment banked emiss period, are the use of such banked credits considered __ Yes __ No Comments:

10. If emission reductions achieved in the 1990 1996 period are cre are they documented to be in excess of the emission reductions ( net o the 15 percent rate of progress plan?

__ Yes __ No Comments: C 6 STATE IMPLE AREAS USING U 1. Was an approved mo model?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

2. Are attainment year emission estim inventory?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

3. Were allowable emissions used as the basis for fut __ Yes __ No Comments:

4. Was the MOBILE5a model used for projecting mobile source __ Yes __ No Comments:

5. Have all MOBILE5a model inputs for the projection emission inventory b __ Yes __ No Comments:

6. Were the assumptions used to simulate the effects of control measures ( e. g., emission reductions and implementation dates) in the modeling analysis consistent with the assumptions used for the control measures specified in the 15 percent and post 1996 rate of

progress plans to meet the target level of emissions for each applicable milestone date?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

7. Was EPS2.0 used to process ( including projection and control) the emission estimates for the attainment year?

__ Yes __ No Comments: 22 Guideline for Regulatory Application of the Urban Airshed Model, EPA 450/ 4 91 01, U. S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triang NC. 1991.

C 7 8. Were mete __ Yes __ No Comments:

9. Are emissions for the entir __ Yes __ No Comments:

10. Are EPA supplied numbers for back account for emissions from the surroundin __ Yes __ No Comments:

11. Was the most recent regulatory version of the UAM and was it applied in accordance with EPA guideline pro evaluation specified in the document entitled Guideline for Urban Airshed Model? 22 __ Yes __ No Comments:

12. Was a modeling demonstration package prepared containing requ documented in EPA guidance?

__ Yes __ No Comments: C 8 CONTROL ME 1. Does the plan descr __ Yes __ No Comments:

2. Are all control measures requi Stationary Source Controls:

Serious and above ozone nonattainment a a) RACT rule fix ups ( for those areas with RAC b) RACT rule catch ups: __ Yes __ No Serious ozone nonattainment areas:

a) Major stationary source threshold of 50 tpy:

VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No b) New source review ( NSR) offset ratio of 1.2 to 1:

VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No Severe ozone nonattainment areas:

a) Major stationary source threshold of 25 tpy:

VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No b) NSR offset ratio of 1.3 to 1:

VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No C 9 Extreme ozone n a) Major stationary s VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No b) NSR offset ratio of 1.5 to 1:

VOC __ Yes __ No NO x __ Yes __ No c) Clean fuels or advanced control technology for Ozone transport region:

a) Additional requirements deemed by the transport comm __ Yes __ No Comments:

Mobile Source Controls Serious and above ozone nonattainment areas:

a) FMVCP and RVP program: __ Yes __ No b) Stage II vapor recovery program: __ Yes __ No c) Enhanced I/ M program: __ Yes __ No d) Clean fuel fleet vehicle program ( in areas with a population of 250,000 or greater) or: __ Yes __ No Optional clean fuel fleet vehicle program substitute: __ Yes __ No C 10 Severe and abov a) TCM's to offset VM b) Employer trip reductio __ No Ozone transport region:

a) Enhanced I/ M program for any m 100,000 or more:

__ Yes __ No Comments:

3. Did the State identify the appropriate MOBILE5a __ Yes __ No Comments:

4. Does the plan present a control strategy implementation sched __ Yes __ No Comments:

5. Will all control measures that are specified in the post 1996 rate of progr implemented by the appropriate target year?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

6. Is the implementation schedule consistent with the requirements of the Act?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

7. Is the agency that will have enforcement authority specified for each control measure?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

8. Are the measures adopted and copies of the rules submitted?

__ Yes __ No Comments: C 11 9. Does the plan each control measu described in the Gen four principles are as f measures must be quantif the control measures must b the General Preamble for furt __ Yes __ No Comments:

10. Are all major non CTG stationary sour __ Yes __ No Comments:

11. Does the plan include RACT rules for major non C CTG documents are not available?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

12. Is RE ( and for area sources, rule penetration) factored into the ca emission reductions associated with new control measures?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

13. Is the 80 percent default RE used?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

14. Is the EPA guidance followed in calculating the expected emission reductions from any RE improvements?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

15. In estimating expected emission reductions associated with new control measures, is the compliance period ( e. g., daily compliance) factored into the calculation consistent with EPA guidance?

__ Yes __ No Comments: C 12 MILESTONE A 1. Does the post 1996 automatically impleme __ Yes __ No Comments:

2. Will the contingency measures ac addition to the emission reductions in __ Yes __ No Comments:

3. Are the contingency measures consistent with th __ Yes __ No Comments:

4. Do the contingency measures meet the minimum requireme in the General Preamble ( 56 FR 13498)?

__ Yes __ No Comments:

5. Does the post 1996 rate of progress plan ensure that contingency measure implemented with no additional rulemaking actions such as public hearings o review by the State?

__ Yes __ No Comments: D 1 APPENDIX D:

OF PROGRESS R This appendix contains unsign concerning the 15 percent rate o 1996 requirements. D 2 3/ 2/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Correction to " Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans"

FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X This memorandum corrects an error in the document entitled, " Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 92 005), which was released in October 1992. Section 2.3 of this document, Requirements of Section 182( b)( 1)( A)( ii), states the following on page 17:

Nonattainment areas can achieve less than the 15 percent required reductions under the following restrictive circumstances. The State must demonstrate that the area has a new source review program equivalent to the requirements in extreme areas [ section 182( e)], except that " major source" must include any source that emits, or has the potential to emit, 5 tons per year ( tpy) of VOC or NOx. Additionally, all major sources of VOC and NOx ( down to 5 tpy) in the area must be required to have RACT level controls.

The correction removes the references to NOx from this discussion for consistency with the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the corrected portion of the paragraph now reads ". . . potential to emit, 5 tons per year ( tpy) of VOC. Additionally, all major sources of VOC ( down to 5 tpy) . . . ."

Please share this information with your State and appropriate local air pollution control agencies. Any questions about this correction may be addressed to Kimber Scavo at ( 919) 541 3354. D 3 3/ 11/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone/ Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify an issue related to the 15 percent rate of progress plans. At least one Region has interpreted the statement that moderate areas are not required to demonstrate in 1997 that the 15 percent reduction in volatile organic compounds ( VOC) has been achieved to mean that these areas do not have to submit a rate of progress plan by November 15, 1993. This interpretation is erroneous.

All areas classified as at least moderate must submit a plan demonstrating how a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions ( net of growth) will be achieved by 1996 unless the waiver provisions of section 182( b)( 1)( A)( ii) are met. Section 182( g)( 1), however, requires that " the State shall determine whether each nonattainment area ( other than an area classified as marginal or moderate) has achieved a reduction in emissions during the preceding intervals equivalent to the total emission reductions required to be achieved by the end of such interval . . . ." In other words, moderate areas must submit a plan by November 15, 1993 showing how the 15 percent will be achieved, but will not be required to demonstrate in 1997 that the 15 percent was actually achieved.

The test for moderate areas will be whether they attained the standard because the attainment date for moderate areas coincides with the milestone demonstration date. Failure to attain will cause an area to be required to implement its contingency measures, and may cause the area to be bumped up to a higher classification. Also, failure of a moderate area to implement its 15 percent plan may result in a finding that the State failed to implement its State implementation plan, which would result in the imposition of sanctions.

Please make this information available to the appropriate State and local agencies in your Region. If you have any questions concerning this issue, please contact Laurel Schultz at ( 919) 541 5511. D 4 5/ 6/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Credit Toward the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Reductions from Federal Measures FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone/ Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

Susan Wyatt, Chief Chemicals and Petroleum Branch ( MD 13)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X As you know, many States have been asking whether they will be able to take credit in their 15 percent rate of progress plans for reductions of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) from federal measures and imminent control techniques guidelines. We have identified several categories for which we believe reductions will be achieved by 1996. The attached table lists these categories along with the amount of reductions for which States can take credit in the plans. Please share this information with the appropriate State and local agencies in your Region. If you have any questions, please contact Laurel Schultz at ( 919) 541 5511.

Attachment 23 The number in this column represents the percent reduction that EP for the purposes of the 15% plans only.

24 The term " major source" is defined for hazardous air pollutants in section Air Act.

D 5 New VOC Related Requirements Category Percent Reduction23 CTG's SOCMI Distillation 98% from each controlled vent SOCMI Reactor Vents 98% from each controlled vent National Rules TSDF Phase II 93% from 1990 baseline NESHAP's Hazardous Organic NESHAP for SOCMI 5% from 1990 baseline Ethylene Oxide Commercial Sterilizers 97% from each major source24 D 6 6/ 14/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Correction to " Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans"

FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X This memorandum corrects an error in the document entitled " Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 92 005), which was released in October 1992. Appendix B of this document explains how to calculate the emissions reductions achieved through the correction of existing reasonably available control technology ( RACT) rules. Two of the examples in this appendix incorrectly use growth factors in determining the reductions from rule corrections. As with the inspection and maintenance corrections and reductions from the Federal motor vehicle control plan and Reid vapor pressure, the RACT corrections should not include growth. A corrected version of Appendix B is attached. Because the adjustment for RACT corrections is relatively small, this correction should not have a significant impact on States' calculations.

Please share this information with your State and appropriate local air pollution control agencies. Any questions about this correction may be addressed to Laurel Schultz of my staff at ( 919) 541 5511.

Attachment D 7 APPENDIX B: CALCULATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RACT RULE CORRECTIONS Section 4.1 of this document discusses cases where RACT rule corrections do not directly result in quantifiable emissions reductions. Any incidental reductions that occur in these cases may be handled as part of a rule effectiveness improvement. Corrections to RACT rules that may result in additional, enforceable, and quantifiable emissions reductions include situations where:

! A rule was missing [ i. e., a State committed to develop a rule as part of its 1977 State implementation plan ( SIP), or post 1982 SIP, but never carried through on the commitment prior to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

! The limit was wrong.

! A capture system is now required to ensure meeting a RACT limit.

For the case where a rule was missing, the State should first calculate the uncontrolled emissions in 1990. Next, the State must evaluate the expected emissions reduction in 1996 by calculating 1996 emissions ( including controls) and subtracting this number from 1990 emissions. This total expected emissions reduction should be added to the total reductions in step 5 in the example in section 2.1 of this document. These reductions are not creditable toward the 15 percent volatile organic compounds ( VOC) emissions reduction requirement.

For the second case, the State should first evaluate the pound ( lb) VOC/ gallon ( gal) solids for each limit.

1990 limit = 3.5 lb VOC/ gal coating 1) 1990 lb VOC/ gal solids =

3.5 lb VOC x 1 gal coating = 0.476 gal VOC gal coating 7.36 lb VOC gal coating 2) Calculate solids in 1 gal coating: 1  0.476 = 0.524 gal solids 3) Calculate gallons of coating needed to get gallon of solids: 1 gal coating = 1.908 gal coating 0.524 gal solids gal solids D 8 4) Convert 3.5 lb/ gal coating to lb VOC/ gal solids: 3.5 lb VOC x 1.908 gal coating = 6.678 lb VOC gal coating gal solids gal solids The 1996 limit will be 2.9 lb/ gal.

Similarly, convert 2.9 lb VOC/ gal coating to lb VOC/ gal solids.

5) 2.9 lb VOC x 1 gal VOC = 0.394 gal VOC gal coating 7.36 lb VOC gal coating 6) Volume of solids in 1 gal coating: 1  0.394 = 0.606 gal solids 7) Calculate gallons of coating needed to get 1 gallon of solids: 1 gal coating = 1.650 gal coating 0.606 gal solids gal solids 8) Convert 2.9 lb VOC gal coating to lb VOC/ gal solids: 2.9 lb VOC x 1.650 gal coating = 4.785 lb VOC gal coating gal solids gal solids The facility uses 100 gal solids in 1990 day 9) Compare 1990 and 1996 Emissions:

1990 = 6.678 lbs VOC x 100 gal solids = 667.8 lbs VOC gal solids day day 1996 = 4.785 lb VOC x 100 gal solids = 478.5 lb VOC gal solids day day 1990 Emissions  1996 Emissions = 667.8  478.5 = 189.3 lb VOC day Therefore, 189.3 lb VOC/ day are noncreditable.

For the third case where a capture system is required, expected emissions reductions should be calculated in the following way. First, uncontrolled emissions should be determined.

1990 Paper Coaters:

! Eighty percent of emissions coming out of the oven and vented to an incinerator of 98 percent demonstrated destruction efficiency.

! Twenty percent of emissions are fugitive from uncontrolled flash off area. D 9 Total uncontrolled emissions in 1990 =

1,000 lb/ day if total is uncontrolled, however, when system is controlled, 80 percent of this is captured, and 98 percent of captured emissions are destroyed.

Therefore, emissions from the incinerator after control are 1,000 lb/ day x ( 1( 0.80)) x ( 1( 0.98)) =

( 1,000 lb/ day) x ( 0.20) x ( 0.02) = 4 lb/ day controlled. Total Emissions from incinerator + fugitives = 4 lb/ day + ( 1,000 lb/ day x ( 0.20)) = 204 lb/ day 1996 Emissions: New State rule now requires permanent total enclosure, so the controlled emissions are:

1,000 lb day ( 1.0) ( 0.02) = 20 lb/ day Noncreditable Emissions Reductions = 1990 Emissions  1996 Emissions = 204 lb/ day  20 lb/ day 184 lb/ day The preceding examples are not intended to be fully inclusive. States should evaluate all RACT rule corrections to determine if such measures result in real, enforceable, and permanent emissions reductions. If so, such reductions must be quantified and considered in the SIP development process when preparing the 1996 target level of emissions. If a State is unclear on how to calculate such reductions, then the State should consult with the Regional Office and Headquarters for guidance. D 10 7/ 28/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Correction Errata to the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plan Guidance Series FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone and Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X This memorandum corrects several errors in the 15 percent rate of progress plan guidance series.

1. There is an error in the Table entitled, " Major Source Thresholds and Minimum Emissions Offset Ratio Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Area Classifications," in the following 15 percent guidance documents:

! " Guidance on the Adjusted Base Year Emissions Inventory and the 1996 Target for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 92 005), p. A 3.

! " Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 93 002), p. A 3.

! " Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act" ( EPA 452/ R 93 007), p. 12.

! " Guidance on Preparing Enforceable Regulations and Compliance Programs for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 93 005), p. A 4.

The error is in the item, " All Other Nonattainment Areas, in an Ozone Transport Region." The volatile organic compounds tons per year ( tpy) should be 50 tpy rather than 100 tpy.

2. The document entitled " Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act" ( EPA 452/ R 93 007), has an error concerning the creditability of certain transportation control D 11 measures. Section 5.8 of this document states the following on page 39:

Emissions reductions resulting from TCM's are creditable if the TCM is not already federally mandated ( e. g., the employee trip reduction program required under section 182( d)( 1)( B) for severe and extreme ozone nonattainment areas), or is not part of an already existing SIP. As with all other emissions reductions, emissions reductions associated with TCM's are only creditable to the 15 percent rate of progress plan if they are quantifiable, real, enforceable, replicable, accountable, and occur by November 15, 1996.

The correction revises the first sentence of the preceding paragraph:

Emissions reductions resulting from TCM's are creditable if the TCM was not a pre 1990 control measure in an already existing SIP. As with all other emissions reductions, emissions reductions associated with TCM's are only creditable to the 15 percent rateof progress plan if they are quantifiable, real, enforceable, replicable, accountable, and occur by November 15, 1996.

3. In the document, " Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans" ( EPA 452/ R 93 002, March 1993), there are several errors in Chapter 6.

a. On page 55, the text under the table, last sentence, " The [( 200 RE PY)/ 100] factor is not valid for low RE values" is incorrect and should be deleted.

b. On page 57, the sentence before the heading, " Equation 5  Projection calculated from permitted emissions rates," (" The [( 200  RE)/ 100] factor is not valid for low RE values") is incorrect and should be deleted.

c. On page 57, the second and third paragraphs under the heading, " Equation 5  Projection calculated from permitted emissions rates," should read as follows: D 12 EMIS PY

ER PY  ( 200  RE PY)

100 ( 200  RE BY)

100  EMIS BY, O EMIS BY, Annual ( 5) The equation for projecting emissions in this case is:

where: EMIS PY = Projection year emissions ozone season typical weekday ( mass of pollutant/ day) ER PY = Projection year annual emissions cap ( mass of pollutant/ year) RE BY = Base year RE ( percent) RE PY = Projection year RE ( percent) EMIS BY, O = Base year ozone season typical weekday emissions ( mass of pollutant/ day) EMIS BY, Annual = Base year annual emissions ( mass of pollutant/ year)

The factor EMIS BY, O/ EMIS BY, Annual converts the long term annual emissions cap to an ozone season typical weekday emissions cap using the ratio of base year ozone season typical weekday to annual emissions. Note that the mass units ( i. e., tons, pounds) must be equivalent in both terms. These projections must also account for RE. The factor, "[( 200  RE)/ 100]," adjusts emissions for RE. See the explanation under equation ( 2) for additional information about this factor.

d. On page 65 under: " 6. Mass Emissions Limit Based Permits," the second and third paragraphs should be replaced with the following:

The long term annual limits will be used for emissions projections since these are more representative of expected rather than maximum activity. These limits must be converted to reflect ozone season typical weekday conditions. Annual limits are converted using the ratio of base year ozone season emissions to base year annual emissions.

Base Year Operating Conditions Ozone season emissions = 150 lb/ day = 0.075 tons/ day Annual emissions = 23 tpy RE = 80% Projection Year Conditions Current permit = 30 tpy RE = 80% D 13 EMIS PY

ER PY  ( 200  RE PY) 100 ( 200  RE BY) 100  EMIS BY, O EMIS BY, Annual ( 5)

EMIS PY

30  ( 200  80)

100 ( 200  80)

100  0.075 23

0.098 tons/ day

196 lb/ day Equation ( 5) is used to calculate projection year emissions as follows:

Please share this information with your State and local air pollution control agencies. Any questions about these corrections may be addressed to Kimber Scavo at ( 919) 541 3354 or Laurel Schultz at ( 919) 541 5511. D 14 8/ 23/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans FROM: Michael H. Shapiro Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation ( ANR 443)

TO: Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X As you know, section 182( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act ( Act) requires States to submit, by November 15, 1993 for all ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate and above, a State implementation plan ( SIP) that provides for a 15 percent reduction in emissions of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) by November 15, 1996. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance related to these SIP submissions.

Committal SIP's for 15 Percent Plan Control Measures Several States asked to what extent will the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) accept committal SIP's for the measures necessary to achieve the 15 percent reduction. Under section 110( k)( 4) of the Act, EPA has the authority to conditionally approve a SIP submittal based on a commitment by the State to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain. A previous memorandum identified specific cases in which EPA would accept commitments for submittals which were due by November 15, 1992. For the 15 percent rate of progress plans, EPA will not accept commitments to adopt the measures needed to meet the 15 percent reduction requirement and any such plans would not be D 15 considered approvable. In fact, EPA may determine such submittals to be incomplete, which would trigger a findings letter starting the clock for mandatory sanctions. The only exception would be for the State of Texas where EPA Headquarters, based on initial views at the time, indicated a commitment would be acceptable.

NOx Substitution for Contingency Measures Section 172( c)( 9) of the Act requires moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas to adopt contingency measures by November 15, 1993. These measures would have to be implemented if the area fails to make reasonable further progress ( RFP) or to attain the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) by the applicable attainment date. In addition, section 182( c)( 9) of the Act requires serious and above areas to adopt contingency measures which would be implemented if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone. When triggered, the contingency measures must be implemented without further action by the State or the EPA.

The " General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990" ( 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992) requires that the contingency measures generally must provide reductions of 3 percent of the emissions from the adjusted base year inventory. The reductions must be achieved in the year following that in which the failure has been identified. Three percent represents 1 year's worth of reductions under the post 1996 rate of progress requirement.

The contingency measures that are required to be adopted by November 15, 1993 are for both failure to achieve RFP and failure to attain. While the contingency measures to address failure to achieve RFP must be for VOC, the contingency measures for failure to attain may be for VOC and/ or NOx. Since these measures will be implemented after 1996, and because these measures serve two purposes ( i. e., failure to achieve RFP and failure to attain), the contingency measures could provide for less than 3 percent in VOC reductions as long as some of the measures are for VOC and the area would have the difference ( up to 3 percent) in NOx reductions. Based on discussions with EPA's Office of General Counsel, we have determined that States must adopt a minimum of 0.3 percent in VOC measures of the 3 percent contingency measure requirement to be legally defensible. Therefore, in an area that has demonstrated that NOx controls are needed for attainment, 2.7 percent of the required 3 percent could be NOx contingency measures; at least 0.3 percent must still be VOC to cover the contingency requirement for meeting RFP. Note that this applies to moderate areas as well; moderate areas must submit an approvable plan that shows how they will achieve the 15 percent requirement but are not required to submit a demonstration that the milestone was achieved. Moderate areas, of course, must D 16 demonstrate that they have attained the NAAQS for ozone by November 15, 1996.

In order for NOx contingency measures to be acceptable, the State must adhere to EPA's forthcoming guidance on NOx substitution. In addition, States must show with modeling evidence that NOx reductions are needed in a particular nonattainment area. Therefore, in order to give States enough time to consult EPA's guidance on NOx substitution and to determine if NOx reductions are needed, EPA will accept committals for contingency measures that are due November 15, 1993. If the contingency measures themselves are not included with the November 15, 1993 submittal, that submittal must include a commitment, with schedule, for contingency measures to be adopted by November 15, 1994.

We believe that this is acceptable due to the fact that the earliest a contingency measure would be implemented would be in 1997. The first attainment date and milestone date for areas that are required to adopt contingency measures is November 15, 1996. The EPA will expect all actions needed to make the measures fully effective to occur within 60 days after EPA notifies the State of its milestone failure or within 6 months of its attainment failure. Therefore, the State would not need to implement the contingency measures until 1997 and EPA could accept measures that could not be implemented until 1997.

Upon activation of the contingency measures, reductions of up to 3 percent ( or such lesser percentage that will cure the identified failure) must be achieved 1 year following the date on which the failure had been identified. The State must achieve these reductions while conducting additional control measure development and implementation as necessary to correct the shortfall if it is beyond the 3 percent the State would have already adopted. In determining what measures should be implemented if less than 3 percent reduction is needed to cure the failure, all VOC contingency measures should be required first followed by the appropriate percentage of NOx measures that will correct the shortfall.

15 Percent Waiver Provision Under section 182( b)( 1)( A)( ii), areas can submit plans demonstrating less than a 15 percent emission reduction if the following conditions are met. First, the State must demonstrate that the area has a new source review program equivalent to the requirement in extreme areas [ section 182( e)], except that a " major source" must include any source that emits, or has the potential to emit, 5 tons per year ( tpy) of VOC. Second, all major sources ( down to those with emissions of 5 tpy of VOC or greater) in the area must be required to have RACT level controls. Third, the State must demonstrate that the SIP D 17 includes all measures ( both stationary and mobile) that are achieved in practice by sources in the same source category in nonattainment areas of the next higher classification. Fourth, the plan must include all measures that can be feasibly implemented in the area, in light of technological achievability and cost.

If an area chooses to meet the requirements of section 182( b)( 1)( A)( ii) to get a waiver of the 15 percent provision, EPA interprets title V to require operating permits for all VOC sources in that area that emit or have the potential to emit 5 tpy of VOC. This is because the definition of " major source" in title V expressly refers to " major stationary source" as defined in part D of title I. Since, under the waiver provision, " major stationary source" would be defined as having the potential to emit 5 tpy for the purposes of title I, this would become the definition of major source for the purposes of title V.

I suggest that you provide a copy of this memo to your affected State and local agencies. Inquiries may be directed to John Silvasi at ( 919) 541 5666. D 18 9/ 20/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Reclassification of Areas to Nonattainment and 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans FROM: John S. Seitz, Director Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards ( MD 10)

TO: Winston A. Smith, Director Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region IV This is in response to your August 20, 1993 memorandum requesting guidance on the reclassification of areas to nonattainment and the 15 percent rate of progress plans. Your specific questions are addressed as follows:

1. If an attainment area becomes a moderate nonattainment area, what is the year of the baseline inventory? Will it be 1990 or some other year? If it is a year other than 1990, how will it be determined?

Answer: Section 181( b)( 1) of the Clean Air Act ( Act) covers areas that were attainment after enactment and that are redesignated to nonattainment. These areas are subject to the requirements under section 110 upon classification, except that any absolute, fixed date applicable in connection with any such requirement is extended by operation of law by a period equal to the length of time between the date of the enactment of the Act and the date the area is classified. Therefore, the base year inventory year would be the year in which the area was redesignated to nonattainment.

2. Are there any regulatory programs that if adopted for nonattainment areas would be creditable toward the 15 percent requirement but if adopted prior to the nonattainment designation would not be creditable?

Answer: A regulatory program adopted for a nonattainment area that would be creditable toward the 15 percent requirement could be considered noncreditable for an area that was redesignated to nonattainment if the regulatory program was 1 The Federal RVP standards were promulgated under both section 211( c) and 211( h) of the Act. States are generally preempted under section 211( c)( 4)( A) from establishing State fuel standards that are not identical to those established under section 211( c). California is not subject to this preemption pursuant to section 211( c)( 4)( B).

D 19 adopted and implemented prior to the base year inventory year in the redesignated area. Thus, the base year inventory must reflect actual emissions including the effect of reductions occurring prior to that year. Only reductions that occur after the base year are creditable toward the 15 percent requirement [ assuming that they meet the other creditability requirements of section 182( b)( 1)( D)]. Also, if a regulatory program that met the creditability provisions was adopted and implemented prior to the base year but continued to result in emissions reductions after the base year, then those emissions reductions occurring after the base year would be creditable to the 15 percent requirement.

3. If a State implements nonregulatory/ voluntary programs and is subsequently designated nonattainment for ozone, can the State use these programs to meet the 15 percent requirement by passing legislation and submitting a State implementation plan ( SIP) revision?

Answer: The program would be creditable only if the reductions occur after the base year.

4. Can a State pass legislation lowering the Reid vapor pressure ( RVP) of gasoline below the 9.0 allowed in attainment areas for purposes of maintaining the standard? If they can, what are the procedures that must be followed?

Answer: States are generally preempted under section 211( c)( 4)( A) from establishing controls on the RVP of gasoline for purposes of motor vehicle emissions control unless the State RVP control is identical to the Federal requirement. 1 A State may, however, adopt and enforce a nonidentical RVP control if an applicable SIP so provides. The EPA may approve such a SIP provision only if the State RVP control is " necessary to achieve" the national ambient air quality standards ( NAAQS) that the SIP implements.

The EPA has previously approved several State RVP controls where the State was able to show that an RVP control more stringent than the Federal requirement was necessary to achieve attainment for designated ozone nonattainment areas in that State [ see, e. g., EPA's approval of a Maryland State RVP control published at 56 FR 23804 ( May 24, 1991)]. That decision D 20 describes the criteria used by EPA in determining whether such a SIP revision is necessary to achieve the NAAQS.

For an area that is currently designated attainment, a State would generally have to demonstrate that the RVP measure is needed in the attainment area in order to achieve the standard in another area that is not in attainment. The EPA approved a SIP revision for statewide RVP controls in the State of New York based on such a showing. However, it is questionable whether EPA would have authority to approve a State RVP control adopted solely to maintain compliance with the NAAQS in attainment areas. If a State would like to pursue this latter issue, then we would work with the Office of General Counsel to determine under what conditions EPA could approve such a SIP submittal.

The process for obtaining a waiver of Federal preemption for State RVP controls involves submission by the State of a SIP revision in section 110 of the Act. The Federal Register notice referred to above provides detailed information on the criteria used by EPA in acting on such a SIP revision.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please give me a call. D 21 10/ 6/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Clarification of " Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans"

FROM: G. T. Helms, Chief Ozone/ Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch ( MD 15)

TO: Air Branch Chief, Regions I X This memorandum clarifies the document entitled, " Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans," ( EPA 452/ R 93 002) which was released in March 1993. Section 6.5 of this document discusses the effects of equipment replacement and new source requirements on the 15 percent plans. However, this discussion, as it relates to new source review, is inconsistent with the document entitled, " Guidance on the Relationship Between the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans and Other Provisions of the Clean Air Act," ( EPA 452/ R 93 007) which was released in May 1993. As discussed in this document, emissions reductions projected to occur from the part D new source review offset requirements are not creditable toward the 15 percent rate of progress plan requirements. However, at the time of reconciliation, any additional, actual, permanent, and enforceable emissions occurring after 1990 resulting from offsets that are not used to offset minor source growth will be creditable in the milestone compliance demonstration due in February 1997 for serious and above areas. The EPA's Office of General Counsel concurs with this position.

A corrected version of section 6.5 of the growth factors document, which is consistent with the relationship document, is attached.

Please share this information with your State and appropriate local air pollution control agencies. Any questions about this correction may be addressed to Laurel Schultz of my staff at ( 919) 541 5511, or me at ( 919) 541 5527.

Attachment D 22 Ert

[ ( Eb  En)  ( 1  r) exp t] 6.5 Effects of Equipment Replacement Failure to consider the effects of equipment replacement and NSPS requirements for an affected facility's existing capital stock, may result in development of a SIP which requires more emissions reductions than necessary to meet rate of progress milestones or NAAQS attainment dates.

As an existing facility wears out and is replaced with newer equipment, it may become subject to a NSPS. To the extent NSPS requirements are more restrictive than present requirements on the existing ( not modified or reconstructed) facility, future emissions will be reduced. The implications of such emissions reductions can be assessed using the following formula:

where: Ert = Emissions reductions in year t Eb = Emissions in the base year En = NSPS emissions r = Annual replacement rate for worn out capital stock t = Years from the base year Consequently, zero net growth emissions need not be the same as baseline; they might actually be less. D 23 10/ 29/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Rate of Progress Plan Guidance on the 15 Percent Calculations FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director Air Quality Management Division ( MD 15)

TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X The Clean Air Act ( Act) requires a specified rate of emissions reductions for all ozone areas classified as moderate and above. Moderate and above areas must submit a State implementation plan ( SIP) revision detailing how the area will achieve a reduction in volatile organic compounds emissions of at least 15 percent between November 15, 1990 and November 15, 1996 ( hereafter called the rate of progress plan). The rate ofprogress requirement is based on the 1990 base year emissions inventory. The rate of progress plan revision is part of the full SIP ( including an attainment demonstration based on modeling) for most moderate areas, and a separate submittal for serious and above areas ( due November 15, 1993).

The Ozone/ Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch coordinated the development of a series of guidance documents to guide States as they develop their SIP's to meet the new rate of progress requirements of section 182( b)( 1). These documents were released between October 1992 and June 1993. In addition, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards staff presented a satellite training workshop on the 15 percent rate of progress plans and the attainment demonstrations in the spring of 1993. The guidance documents and the workshop explained the procedures for D 24 calculating the 15 percent requirement that was first put forth in the " General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," ( 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992).

Several variations have been suggested for the calculation procedures of this requirement. One suggestion would allow States to offset only 15 percent of the growth rather than all of the growth. Another suggestion would take credit for the Federal motor vehicle control program as a means to achieve the total reductions necessary to meet the 15 percent requirement and offset growth.

Regarding the requirement to account for growth, the Environmental Protection Agency's ( EPA's) interpretation of the Act ensures that actual reductions will occur if an area is to meet the 15 percent reduction requirement. Some of the alternative interpretation suggested could lead to a situation where, due to significant growth, an area's projected emissions even after applying a 15 percent reduction could be higher in 1996 than in 1990, but the area would still be considered as meeting the progress requirement. We do not believe this reflects the intent of the Act. States should, therefore, follow the guidance documents issued by EPA when developing their 15 percent rate of progress plans that are due November 15, 1993. Thus, we do not foresee allowing the variations such as those discussed above.

A second issue arises as a result of some confusion concerning the above cited EPA guidance on 15 percent plans. The EPA intends to determine the approvability of the 15 percent rate of progress plans using four basic criteria: ( 1) the baseyear inventory and associated projections must be appropriately justified; ( 2) the target level of emissions is properly calculated; ( 3) the target level of emissions will be achieved if the strategies adopted and identified in the plan are shown to successfully achieve the necessary level of reductions by the end of 1996; and ( 4) contingency measures of 3 percent ( or a commitment to adopt such measures) are included. Some of the confusion associated with the guidance may come from the discussion of total required reductions. The best test of whether a 15 percent rate of progress plan will be acceptable is not whether a certain amount of reductions is achieved, but whether the projected emissions in 1996 will be at or below the target. The attachment to this memorandum explains specifically how these calculations are to be done.

Finally, there is apparently some confusion concerning the creditability of reductions due to the Federal motor vehicle control program ( FMVCP). The Act states that emission reductions from "[ a] ny measures relating to motor vehicle exhaust or evaporative emissions promulgated by the Administrator by D 25 January 1, 1990" are not creditable toward the 15 percent requirement. This means that reductions due to the pre 1990 FMVCP standards are not creditable but that reductions due to any new standards promulgated after January 1,1990 are creditable.

We suggest that you forward this information to your State and local agencies. If you have questions or comments, please contact Kimber Scavo at ( 919) 541 3354 or Laurel Schultz at ( 919) 541 5511.

Attachment D 26 ATTACHMENT A specific question that has been raised is whether the 1996 projected emissions that are used to calculate the total required reductions ( box " C" in the attached flowchart) should reflect the effects of the noncreditable Federal motor vehicle control program ( FMVCP) and Reid vapor pressure ( RVP) requirements. There are at least three approaches to this. All three approaches will result in the same answer if followed carefully. However, some may be easier than others depending on what work has already been done. Method 3 may be the simplest of the three because it does not require individual calculation of reductions associated with each mobile source measure. In all cases ( including method 3), full documentation must be provided, including information on MOBILE5a input and vehicle miles travelled ( VMT) used in the calculations.

States should also note that the test of the plan will be to determine whether the reductions from the measures listed below are greater than or equal to the " Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net of Growth" ( box C  box D). Because of the possibility for errors in these reduction calculations, States should double check their calculations by looking at whether the projected emissions for 1996, including growth and all of the controls expected to be in place, will be at or below the calculated 1996 target. If there is a discrepancy between the results calculated by comparing the projected 1996 inventory to the target and the results calculated above, it is likely that some of the reductions have been double counted. The EPA intends to compare the 1996 projected inventory ( that should be submitted with the documentation of the 15 percent rate of progress plan) to the target as the primary test of whether a State's plan demonstrates the required reduction.

1. Growth Projections without Control Projections ( a) The State can project the 1996 emissions as if the reductions from FMVCP and RVP will not occur. In other words, the " 1996 Estimated Emissions ( Anthropogenic)" is the " 1990 Rateof Progress Base Year Inventory" ( box A) multiplied by the appropriate growth factors. The on road mobile portion of this 1996 inventory is determined by multiplying the 1990 emission factors by the 1996 VMT. The " Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net of Growth" ( box C  box D) will represent all of the reductions needed by 1996, including pre enactment FMVCP and RVP that will occur anyway.

( b) The reductions that will count toward this total are as follows:

Pre enactment FMVCP and RVP I/ M corrections D 27 Tier 1 ( post 1990 vehicle emission standards) Enhanced I/ M Reformulated gasoline RACT corrections Reductions from any other stationary or mobile source measures States should take care that the reductions are properly calculated. For example, the reductions associated with the preenactment FMVCP and RVP in this case are calculated as the difference between the product of box A times growth factors ( i. e., 1990 emission factors times 1996 VMT) and 1996 projected emissions with no new Clean Air Act ( Act) measures ( 1996 emission factors with NEWFLG= 5 and Phase II RVP times 1996 VMT). Note that this is different than the calculation used to adjust the 1990 base year inventory.

The reductions associated with Tier 1 standards are then calculated as the difference between 1996 emissions with no new Act measures ( calculated in the previous step) and 1996 projected emissions with NEWFLG= 1 and Phase II RVP. Reductions for other measures can then be calculated sequentially in the same manner ( i. e., compare 1996 projected emissions with the new control measure in place to 1996 emissions without the new control measure in place but with all the previously calculated control measures in place).

2. Growth Projections with Federal Mobile Source Control Projections ( a) The State can project the 1996 emissions as if the reductions from FMVCP and RVP will occur, but no additional mobile or stationary source controls will be in effect. In this case, the " 1996 Estimated Emissions ( Anthropogenic)" is essentially the " 1990 Adjusted Base Year Inventory" multiplied by the appropriate growth factors. The on road mobile portion of this 1996 inventory is determined by multiplying the 1996 emission factors ( with NEWFLG= 5, Tier 1 turned off, Phase II RVP on) by the 1996 VMT.

( b) The " Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net of Growth" ( box C  box D) will represent all of the reductions needed by 1996, in addition to pre enactment FMVCP and RVP that will occur anyway. The reductions that will count toward this total are as follows:

Tier 1 ( post 1990 vehicle emission standards) Enhanced I/ M Reformulated gasoline I/ M corrections RACT corrections D 28 Reductions from any other stationary or mobile source measures 3. Growth Projections with all Current Control Projections ( a) The State can project the 1996 emissions as if the reductions from FMVCP and RVP and any other mobile and stationary source controls, planned or in effect, will occur. In this case, the " 1996 Estimated Emissions ( Anthropogenic)" is essentially the " 1990 Rate of Progress Base Year Inventory" with the appropriate growth factors and controls applied. The on road mobile portion of this 1996 inventory is determined by multiplying the 1996 emission factors ( with NEWFLG= 1, enhanced I/ M, reform, and any other controls turned on) by the 1996 VMT.

( b) The " Reductions Needs by 1996 to Achieve 15 Percent Net of Growth" ( box C  box D) will represent all of the additional reductions needed by 1996. The reductions that will count toward this total are as follows:

Reductions from any other stationary or mobile source measures. D 29 11/ 8/ 93 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Clarification of Issues Regarding the Contingency Measures that are due November 15, 1993 for Moderate and Above Ozone Nonattainment Areas FROM: D. Kent Berry, Acting Director Air Quality Management Division ( MD 15)

TO: Director, Air Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Regions I and IV Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II Director, Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, Region III Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X The August 23, 1993 memorandum " Guidance on Issues Related to 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans," from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to you, set forth the policy on accepting nitrogen oxide ( NOx) measures for a portion of the contingency measures that are due November 15, 1993, and for allowing committal State implementation plans ( SIP's) for the contingency measure submittal. This memorandum provides additional clarification on a number of related issues that were raised after issuance of the August 23 memo.

NOx Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT)

Section 172( c)( 9) of the Clean Air Act ( Act) states that moderate and above ozone nonattainment areas ". . . shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to attain the national ambient air quality standard."

In addition, section 182( c)( 9) of the Act states that serious and above areas ". . . shall provide for the 1Note that an area may use as a contingency measure a rule or measure that is required for another pollutant ( such as carbon monoxide) as long as it would provide reductions in volatile organic compounds ( VOC) or NOx.

D 30 implementation of specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails to meet any applicable milestone."

Because the Act says that specific measures must be undertaken if the area fails to meet a milestone, any measures that are already required in any ozone nonattainment area would not be creditable for the 3 percent contingency measure requirement. 1 Therefore, since NOx RACT is already a requirement, it would not be accepted as a contingency measure. The only exception would be the early implementation of required measures scheduled for implementation at a later date in the SIP. In this case, if an area then failed to meet a milestone which triggered the implementation of the contingency measures, the State would have 1 year to backfill the shortfall.

Note that measures that provide for emissions reductions beyond RACT would be creditable as contingency measures.

Control Techniques Guidelines ( CTG's)

States may adopt, as a contingency measure, rules for categories where the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) plans to issue a CTG. When EPA finally issues the CTG, however, the State will have to revise its SIP to ensure implementation of the RACT rule by a date certain. In other words, the rule can no longer be a " contingency measure" that is triggered by failure to attain or failure to meet reasonable further progress. The rule would thus have to be replaced with another contingency measure after EPA issues the CTG because of the rationale stated above. When a CTG is issued by EPA, States can consider moving a rule or measure from its 15 percent plan to its contingency plan and replacing the 15 percent rule or measure with the CTG rule. This type of transaction would require a SIP revision.

Maximum Available Control Technology ( MACT), and Other Federal Rules Any reductions that occur because of implementing MACT or any Federal rule are not creditable toward the contingency measure requirement because of the rationale stated above. States may, however, use as contingency measures rules for categories for which EPA plans in the future to issue Federal rules. Note that such contingency measures must be replaced when EPA finally issues the rule. As stated in the discussion of CTG's, a SIP revision would be required when a State replaces rules or measures in their 15 percent plan with the new MACT 2Two of which are: " General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990," 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992, and " Guidance for Growth Factors, Projections, and Control Strategies for the 15 Percent Rate of Progress Plans," EPA 452/ R 93 002, March 1993.

D 31 standard or Federal rule and moves the replaced rule or measure to its contingency plan.

Episodic Strategies Section 123 of the Act states that an emissions limitation may not be affected by any dispersion technique, which includes " any intermittent or supplemental control of air pollutants varying with atmospheric conditions." According to EPA guidance documents, 2 by November 15, 1993, EPA expects the regulations or measures that are adopted for the 15 percent rate of progress plan to be fully adopted, real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable. Therefore, since episodic strategies do not result in real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reductions, they will not be approvable for the contingency measure requirement, as well as the 15 percent plan requirement. The EPA's policy was set forth in, " Stack Height Regulation; Final Rule," 50 FR 27892, July 8, 1985.

Committal SIP's If a State elects to submit in its SIP a commitment for the contingency measure requirement, it must include a commitment to adopt, by November 15, 1994, the measures or rules for the entire 3 percent required. The commitment must provide as much information as possible, but we recognize that in some cases it may be difficult to list the measures that an area is considering with a schedule because the area's modeling may not yet be complete. Completion of modeling may be necessary in cases where a State is considering NOx controls as part of the contingency measures. Therefore, EPA will accept such commitments without a list of specific measures, but the commitment should at least note the possible kinds of measures under consideration for NOx and VOC.

Please forward this information to your State and local agencies. Your staff may contact Kimber Scavo at ( 919) 541 3354 with questions.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49402-49403]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The date of January 19, 2018 has been established for the FIRM
and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online

through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the date
indicated above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: October 13, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Lower Suwannee Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Gilchrist County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1523
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Trenton........................  City Hall, 114 North Main
                                          Street, Trenton, FL 32693.
City of Fanning Springs................  City Hall, 17651 Northwest 90th
                                          Court, Fanning Springs, FL
                                          32693.
Unincorporated Areas of Gilchrist        Gilchrist County Building and
 County.                                  Zoning Department, 209
                                          Southeast 1st Street, Trenton,
                                          FL 32690.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Lower Trinity Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Chambers County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1617
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Mont Belvieu...................  City Hall, 11607 Eagle Drive,
                                          Mont Belvieu, TX 77523.
City of Old River-Winfree..............  City Hall, 4818 North Farm to
                                          Market 565 Road, Old River-
                                          Winfree, TX 77523.
Unincorporated Areas of Chambers County  Chambers County Road and Bridge
                                          Department, 201 Airport Road,
                                          Anahuac, TX 77514.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Liberty County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1617
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Daisetta.......................  Municipal Building, 410 B Main
                                          Street, Daisetta, TX 77533.
City of Dayton.........................  City Hall, 117 Cook Street,
                                          Dayton, TX 77535.
City of Dayton Lakes...................  Liberty County Engineering
                                          Department, 2103 Cos Street,
                                          Liberty, TX 77575.
City of Devers.........................  Liberty County Engineering
                                          Department, 2103 Cos Street,
                                          Liberty, TX 77575.
City of Hardin.........................  Hardin City Hall, 142 County
                                          Road 2010, Liberty, TX 77575.
City of Liberty........................  City Hall, Inspection
                                          Department, 1829 Sam Houston
                                          Street, Liberty, TX 77575.
City of Mont Belvieu...................  City Hall, 11607 Eagle Drive,
                                          Mont Belvieu, TX 77523.
Town of Kenefick.......................  Kenefick Town Hall, 3564 Farm
                                          to Market Road 1008, Dayton,
                                          TX 77535.
Unincorporated Areas of Liberty County.  County Engineering Department,
                                          2103 Cos Street, Liberty, TX
                                          77575.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            San Jacinto County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1617
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of San Jacinto      San Jacinto County Courthouse,
 County.                                  Permit Department, 1 State
                                          Highway 150, Room 3,
                                          Coldspring, TX 77331.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-23148 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P