958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 10—CECIL COUNTY 2008 RFP 

MVEBS

VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd) 

2.3 ............................................. 7.9 

In a March 27, 2009 Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 13433), EPA notified the 

public that EPA found that the 2008 

RFP MVEBs in the Cecil County 8-hour 

ozone plan are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. In 

addition to the budgets being adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

EPA found the procedures Maryland 

used to develop the MVEBs to be 

reasonable. The budgets are identical to 

the projected 2008 on-road mobile 

source emission inventories. Because 

the 2008 RFP MVEBs are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes and 

the methods MDE used to develop them 

are correct, the 2008 RFP budgets are 

approvable. 

V. What Are EPA’s Conclusions? 

EPA’s review of the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory; the 2008 ozone 

projected emission inventory; the 2008 

RFP plan; RFP contingency measures; 

Maryland’s RACM analysis; and 2008 

transportation conformity budgets 

contained in MDE’s June 4, 2007 SIP 

revision submittal for Cecil County fully 

addressed the CAA’s requirements. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of 

those elements of MDE’s June 4, 2007 

Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to Cecil County’s 2002 base 

year emissions inventory; 2008 ozone 

projected emission inventory; 2008 RFP 

plan; RFP contingency measures; RACM 

analysis; and 2008 transportation 

conformity budgets does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 23, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2010–15 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0957; FRL–9100–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; 2002 Base Year Emission 

Inventory, Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, 

Reasonably Available Control 

Measures, and Transportation 

Conformity Budgets for the Baltimore 

1997 8-Hour Moderate Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Maryland State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the 

2002 base year emissions inventory, the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

RFP contingency measure, and 

reasonably available control measure 

(RACM) requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) for the Baltimore moderate 

1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) and 

associated with this revision. EPA is 

proposing to approve the SIP revision 

because it satisfies the emission 

inventory, RFP, RACM, RFP 

contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity requirements 

for areas classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates 

further progress in reducing ozone 

precursors. EPA is proposing to approve 

the SIP revision pursuant to section 110 

and part D of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2009–0957 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0957, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 959 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2009– 

0957. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by 

e-mail at pino.maria@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

The following is provided to aid in 

locating information in this document. 

I. What Action is EPA Taking? 

II. What is the Background for this Action? 

III. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the Revision? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What Action is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Maryland SIP submitted 

by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) on June 4, 2007 to 

meet the emissions inventory and RFP 

requirements of the CAA for the 

Baltimore moderate 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (NAA). EPA is 

proposing to approve the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory, the 15 percent RFP 

plan and associated projected 2008 

emission inventories, the contingency 

measures for failure to meet 2008 RFP, 

the RACM analysis, and the RFP 2008 

MVEBs. The RFP plan demonstrates that 

emissions will be reduced 15 percent for 

the period of 2002 through 2008. The 

volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEB 

is 41.2 tons per day (tpd) and the 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) MVEB is 106.8 

tpd. EPA is proposing to approve the 

SIP revision because it satisfies RFP, 

contingency measure, RACM, RFP 

transportation conformity, and 

emissions inventory requirements for 

areas classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and demonstrates further 

progress in reducing ozone precursors. 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

revision pursuant to section 110 and 

part D of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations. 

II. What is the Background for this 

Action? 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time, than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

children and adults who are active 

outdoors, and individuals with a preexisting respiratory disease, such as 

asthma. 

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA 

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. Among those 

nonattainment areas is the Baltimore 

moderate NAA. This NAA includes 

Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, 

Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard 

Counties, all in Maryland. 

These designations triggered the 

CAA’s section 110(a)(1) requirement 

that States must submit attainment 

demonstrations for their nonattainment 

areas to EPA by no later than three years 

after the promulgation of a NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA’s Phase 1 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (Phase 1 

rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 

FR 23951), specifies that States must 

submit attainment demonstrations for 

their nonattainment areas to the EPA by 

no later than three years from the 

effective date of designation, that is, by 

June 15, 2007. 

Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area 

was classified under subpart 2 of the 

CAA based on its 8-hour design value if 

that area had a 1-hour design value at 

or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour 

design value in Table 1 of subpart 2). 

Based on this criterion, the Baltimore 

ozone NAA was classified under 

subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment 

area. 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 

31727), EPA published the Phase 2 final 

rule for implementation of the 8-hour 

standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 

rule addressed the RFP control and 

planning obligations as they apply to 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Among other things, the Phase 1 and 

2 rules outline the SIP requirements and 

deadlines for various requirements in 

areas designated as moderate 

nonattainment. The rules further require 

that modeling and attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress plans, reasonably available 

control measures, projection year 

emission inventories, motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, and contingency 

measures were all due by June 15, 2007 

(40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)). 

Section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 

EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) 

require each 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area designated moderate 

and above to submit an emissions 

inventory and RFP Plan, for review and 

approval into its SIP, that describes how 

the area will achieve actual emissions 

reductions of VOC and NOX from a 

baseline emissions inventory. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

III. What is EPA’s Evaluation of the 

Revision? 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking 

and a more detailed discussion is 

contained in the Technical Support 

Document for this Proposal which is 

available on line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, Docket number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0957. 

On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted 

a comprehensive plan for the Baltimore 

NAA to address the CAA’s 8-hour ozone 

attainment requirements that were 

identified earlier (the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan). The SIP submittal included 

an attainment demonstration plan, RFP 

plans for 2008 and 2009, a RACM 

analysis, contingency measures, on-road 

VOC and NOX MVEBs, and the 2002 

base year emissions inventory. These 

SIP revisions were subject to notice and 

comment by the public and the State 

addressed the comments received on the 

proposed SIPs. All sections of this SIP 

submittal with the exception of the 

attainment demonstration plan will be 

discussed in this rulemaking. The 

attainment demonstration plan sections 

of this SIP submittal will be discussed 

in a separate rulemaking. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

An emissions inventory is a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources and is required by section 

172(c)(3) of the CAA. For ozone 

nonattainment areas, the emissions 

inventory needs to contain VOC and 

NOX emissions because these pollutants 

are precursors to ozone formation. EPA 

recommended 2002 as the base year 

emissions inventory, and is therefore 

the starting point for calculating RFP. 

Maryland submitted its 2002 base year 

emissions inventory on June 4, 2007. A 

summary of the Baltimore NAA 2002 

base year VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories is included in Table 1, 

below. 

TABLE 1—BALTIMORE NAA 2002 

BASE YEAR VOC & NOX EMISSIONS

IN TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Emission source category VOC NOX

Point .................................. 13.88 111.88 

Stationary Area ................. 116.81 8.18 

Non-Road Mobile .............. 70.22 40.96 

On-Road Mobile ............... 70.57 177.06 

Total (excluding 

Biogenics) ..................... 271.48 338.08 

Biogenics .......................... 223.20 0 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 

2008 RFP Target Levels 

The process for determining the 

emissions baseline from which the RFP 

reductions are calculated is described in 

section 182(b)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 

51.910. This baseline value is the 2002 

adjusted base year inventory. Sections 

182(b)(1)(B) and (D) require the 

exclusion from the base year inventory 

of emissions benefits resulting from the 

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990, and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated 

June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The 

FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions 

are determined by the State using EPA’s 

on-road mobile source emissions 

modeling software, MOBILE6. The 

FMVCP and RVP emission reductions 

are then removed from the base year 

inventory by the State, resulting in an 

adjusted base year inventory. The 

emission reductions needed to satisfy 

the RFP requirement are then calculated 

from the adjusted base year inventory. 

These reductions are then subtracted 

from the adjusted base year inventory to 

establish the emissions target for the 

RFP milestone year (2008). 

For moderate areas like the Baltimore 

NAA, the CAA specifies a 15 percent 

reduction in ozone precursor emissions 

over an initial six year period. In the 

Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this 

requirement for areas that were also 

designated nonattainment and classified 

as moderate or higher for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA provided that an area classified as 

moderate or higher that has the same 

boundaries as an area, or is entirely 

composed of several areas or portions of 

areas, for which EPA fully approved a 

15 percent plan for the 1-hour NAAQS, 

is considered to have met the 

requirements of section 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In this 

situation, a moderate nonattainment 

area is subject to RFP under section 

172(c)(2) of the CAA and shall submit, 

no later than 3 years after designation 

for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision 

that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.910(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must 

provide for a 15 percent emission 

reduction (either NOX and/or VOC) 

accounting for any growth that occurs 

during the six year period following the 

baseline emissions inventory year, that 

is, 2002–2008. 

The Baltimore ozone NAA under the 

1-hour ozone standard had the same 

boundary as the Baltimore NAA under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The 

Baltimore nonattainment area under the 

1-hour ozone standard was classified as 

severe. EPA approved Maryland’s 15% 

plan for the Baltimore severe ozone 

nonattainment area on February 2, 2000 

(65 FR 5252). Therefore, according to 

the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for the 

Baltimore NAA may use either NOX or 

VOC emissions reductions (or both) to 

achieve the 15 percent emission 

reduction requirement. 

According to section 182(b)(1)(D) of 

the CAA, emission reductions that 

resulted from the FMVCP and Reid 

Vapor Pressure RVP rules promulgated 

prior to 1990 are not creditable for 

achieving RFP emission reductions. 

Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory 

is adjusted by subtracting the VOC and 

NOX emission reductions that are 

expected to occur between 2002 and the 

future milestone years due to the 

FMVCP and RVP rules. 

Maryland sets out its calculations for 

the adjusted base year inventory and 

2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 of 

the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. 

Step 1. Calculate the Baltimore NAA 

2002 anthropogenic base year inventory. 

This is found in Table 5–1 of the 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan, and 

shown in Table 2, below. 

TABLE 2—BALTIMORE NAA 2002 ANTHROPOGENIC BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category VOC NOX

Point .......................... 13.88 111.88 

Area .......................... 116.81 8.18 

Non-Road ................. 70.22 40.96 

On-Road ................... 70.57 177.06 

Total ................... 271.48 338.08 

Step 2. Maryland calculated the noncreditable emission reductions between 

2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 

2008 motor vehicle emissions with all 

post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and 

calculating the difference. See, Table 3, 

below. 

TABLE 3—BALTIMORE NAA NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category VOC NOX

(i) 2002 On-Road ...... 101.876 211.145 

(ii) 2008 On-Road ..... 92.778 188.541 

Non-creditable Reductions (i)–(ii) ...... 9.10 22.60 

Step 3. Maryland’s calculations of the 

Baltimore NAA 2002 VOC and NOX

inventories adjusted relative to 2008 

and VOC and NOX target levels for 2008 

are found in Table 5–4 and Appendix C 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 961 

of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan, and 

are summarized in Table 4, below. 

TABLE 4—BALTIMORE NAA 2008 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description Formula VOC NOX

A. 2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year Inventory ................................................................................... .................. 271 .48 338 .08 

B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 And 2008 ......................................................................... .................. 9 .10 22 .60 

C. 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 .................................................................... A¥B ........ 262 .38 315 .48 

D. RFP Reductions Totaling 15% ......................................................................................................... .................. 8 7 

E. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 .................................................................. C * D ........ 20 .99 22 .08 

F. Target Level for 2008 ........................................................................................................................ C¥E ........ 241 .39 293 .40 

C. Projected Inventories and 

Determination of RFP 

Maryland describes its methods used 

for developing its 2008 projected VOC 

and NOX inventories in Section 4.0 and 

Appendix B of the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan. Projected uncontrolled and 

controlled 2008 VOC and NOX

emissions are found in Appendix C of 

the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. EPA 

reviewed the procedures Maryland used 

to develop its projected inventories and 

found them to be reasonable. 

Projected controlled 2008 emissions 

for the Baltimore NAA are summarized 

in Table 4–3 of the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan. The data from Table 4–3 is 

presented below, in Table 5, below. 

TABLE 5—BALTIMORE NAA 2008 PROJECTED CONTROLLED VOC & NOX

EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Emission source 

category 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX

emissions 

(tpd) 

Point .......................... 15.63 122.64 

Area .......................... 108.17 8.43 

Non-road ................... 54.21 39.60 

Mobile ....................... 41.23 106.84 

Total ................... 219.25 277.50 

To determine if 2008 RFP is met in 

the Baltimore NAA, the total projected 

controlled emissions must be compared 

to the target levels calculated in the 

previous section of this document. As 

shown below in Table 6, the total VOC 

and NOX emission projections meet the 

2008 emission targets. Therefore, the 

2008 RFP in the Baltimore NAA is 

demonstrated. 

TABLE 6—DETERMINATION OF WHETHER RFP IS MET IN 2008 IN THE

BALTIMORE NAA 

Description 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX

emissions 

(tpd) 

A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled 

Emissions .............. 219.25 277.50 

B. Target Level for 

2008 ...................... 241.39 293.40 

RFP met if A < B ...... (1) (1) 

1Yes. 

D. Control Measures and Emission 

Reductions for RFP 

The control measure Maryland took 

credit for in order to meet the RFP 

requirement in the Baltimore NAA are 

described in Section 6.0 of the 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. Maryland 

used a combination of on-road mobile, 

non-road mobile, and area source 

control measures to meet the RFP 

requirement for the Baltimore NAA. 

The on-road mobile measures 

Maryland used to meet 2008 RFP in the 

Baltimore NAA include enhanced 

vehicle inspection and maintenance 

(enhanced I/M), Tier I vehicle emission 

standards and new Federal evaporative 

test procedures (Tier I), reformulated 

gasoline, the national low emission 

vehicle (NLEV) program, and the 

Federal heavy-duty diesel engine 

(HDDE) rule. Maryland calculated the 

emission reductions for 2008 RFP using 

the MOBILE model for these on-road 

mobile measures. EPA reviewed the 

procedures that MDE used to develop its 

projected inventories, including the use 

of the MOBILE model, and found them 

to be reasonable. Maryland calculated 

the on-road mobile 2008 emission 

reductions to be 42.45 tpd VOC and 

59.10 tpd NOX. 

The non-road measures Maryland 

used to meet 2008 RFP in the Baltimore 

NAA include non-road small gasoline 

engines, non-road diesel engines (Tier I 

and Tier II), marine engine standards, 

emission standards for large spark 

engines, and reformulated gasoline used 

in non-road motor vehicles and 

equipment. Maryland used the 

NONROAD model to calculate emission 

reductions from these non-road 

measures. EPA reviewed the procedures 

that MDE used to develop its projected 

inventories, including the use of the 

NONROAD model, and found them to 

be reasonable. Maryland calculated the 

non-road mobile 2008 emission 

reductions to be 17.89 tpd VOC and 6.74 

tpd NOX. 

The other measures that Maryland 

used to meet RFP in the Baltimore NAA 

are railroad engine standards (Tier 2), 

the consumer and commercial products 

rule (Phase I), the architectural and 

industrial (AIM) coatings rule, and the 

portable fuel containers rule (Phase I). 

In the Technical Support Document 

(TSD) for this action, EPA evaluates 

each of these measures and calculated 

the projected 2008 emission for each 

measure. For details, please refer to 

EPA’s TSD. 

The tier 2 railroad engine standards 

for newly manufactured and 

remanufactured diesel-powered 

locomotives and locomotive engines 

took effect in 2000. EPA calculated 2008 

emission reductions from railroad 

engine to be 1.37 tpd NOX. 

A Federal measure requires 

reformulation of AIM coatings, which 

are field-applied coatings used by 

industry, contractors, and homeowners 

to coat houses, buildings, highway 

surfaces, and industrial equipment for 

decorative or protective purposes. 

Maryland’s AIM rule was effective on 

March 29, 2004. EPA calculated 2008 

emission reductions from Maryland’s 

AIM rule to be 6.02 tpd VOC. 

The phase I commercial and 

consumer products rule requires the 

reformulation of certain consumer 

products to reduce their VOC content. 

Maryland’s consumer products rule was 

effective on August 18, 2003. EPA 

calculated 2008 emission reductions 

from Maryland’s consumer and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

commercial products rule to be 3.70 tpd 

VOC. 

The phase I portable fuel containers 

rule introduces performance standards 

for portable fuel containers and spouts, 

and is intended to reduce emissions 

from storage, transport and refueling 

activities. Maryland’s portable fuel 

container rule was effective on January 

21, 2002. EPA calculated 2008 emission 

reductions from Maryland’s portable 

fuel containers rule to be 8.13 tpd VOC. 

Table 7 summarizes the emission 

reductions that Maryland claimed in the 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan to meet 

RFP in the Baltimore NAA. For certain 

control measures, the 2008 projected 

emission reductions calculated by EPA 

differ from the 2008 projected emission 

reductions that MDE is taking credit for 

in the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. The 

total 2008 projected emission reductions 

calculated by EPA are greater than the 

emission reductions claimed by MDE in 

the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. 

Therefore, the emission reductions 

claimed in the Baltimore 8-hour ozone 

plan are approvable. 

TABLE 7—CONTROL MEASURES AND

2008 EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN THE

BALTIMORE

Control measure VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

On-road Mobile 

Measures .............. 42.45 59.10 

Non-road Model ........ 17.89 6.74 

Railroads (Tier 2) ...... 0.00 1.18 

OTC—Consumer 

Products Phase 1 3.70 0.00 

OTC—AIM Coatings 6.03 0.00 

OTC—Portable Fuel 

Containers Phase 

1 ............................ 6.71 0.00 

Total ................... 76.78 67.02 

E. Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA requires 

a State with a moderate or above ozone 

nonattainment area to include sufficient 

additional contingency measures in its 

RFP plan in case the area fails to meet 

RFP. The same provision of the CAA 

also requires that the contingency 

measures must be fully adopted control 

measures or rules. Upon failure to meet 

an RFP milestone requirement, the State 

must be able to implement the 

contingency measures without any 

further rulemaking activities. Upon 

implementation of such measures, 

additional emission reductions of at 

least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002 

baseline emissions must be achieved. 

For more information on contingency 

measures, see the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (70 FR 

71612). 

To meet the requirements for 

contingency emission reductions, EPA 

allows States to use NOX emission 

reductions to substitute for VOC 

emission reductions in their 

contingency plans. However, MDE 

chose to use only VOC reductions to 

meet the contingency measure 

requirement in the Baltimore NAA. 

MDE discusses its Baltimore NAA 

contingency measures for failure to meet 

RFP in Section 10.2 of the Baltimore 8- 

hour ozone plan. MDE calculated the 

contingency VOC reduction for the 

Baltimore NAA as shown in Table 8, 

below. The RFP contingency 

requirement may be met by including in 

the RFP plan a demonstration of 18 

percent VOC & NOX RFP. The 

additional 3 percent reduction above the 

15 percent requirement must be 

attributed to specific measures. 

TABLE 8—BALTIMORE NAA 2008 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

Description Formula VOC NOX

A. 2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year Inventory ................................................................................... .................. 271 .48 338 .08 

B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 And 2008 ......................................................................... .................. 9 .10 22 .60 

C. 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 .................................................................... A¥B ........ 262 .38 315 .48 

D. RFP Reductions Totaling 15% ......................................................................................................... .................. 8 7 

E. RFP Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 ......................................................... C * D ........ 20 .99 22 .08 

F. Contingency Percentage ................................................................................................................... .................. 3 .00 0 .00 

G. Contingency Emission Reduction Requirements ............................................................................. C * F ........ 7 .87 0 .00 

H. Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008 ................................................................................... C¥E¥G .. 233 .52 293 .40 

To determine if Maryland met the 

three percent contingency measure 

requirement for the Baltimore NAA, the 

total projected controlled emissions 

must be compared to the contingency 

measure target levels calculated above. 

As shown below in Table 9, the total 

VOC and NOX emission projections 

meet the 2008 contingency measure 

targets. Therefore, MDE has met the 

contingency measure requirement for 

the Baltimore NAA. 

TABLE 9—EVALUATION OF THE BALTIMORE NAA 2008 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE REQUIREMENT

Description VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled 

Emissions .............. 219.25 277.50 

B. Contingency 

Measure Target 

Level for 2008 ....... 233.52 293.40 

Contingency measure 

requirement met if 

A < B ..................... (1) (1) 

1Yes. 

F. RACM Analysis 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(1) of the 

CAA, States are required to implement 

all RACM as expeditiously as 

practicable for each nonattainment area. 

Specifically, section 172(c)(1) states the 

following: ‘‘In general—Such plan 

provisions shall provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ 

Furthermore, in EPA’s Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA describes how States must include 

a RACM analysis with their attainment 

demonstration (70 FR 71659). The 

purpose of the RACM analysis is to 

determine whether or not reasonably 

available control measures exist that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 963 

would advance the attainment date for 

nonattainment areas. Control measures 

that would advance the attainment date 

are considered RACM and must be 

included in the SIP. RACM are 

necessary to ensure that the attainment 

date is achieved ‘‘as expeditious as 

practicable.’’ RACM is defined by the 

EPA as any potential control measure 

for application to point, area, on-road 

and non-road emission source categories 

that meets the following criteria: 

• The control measure is 

technologically feasible. 

• The control measure is 

economically feasible. 

• The control measure does not cause 

‘‘substantial widespread and long-term 

adverse impacts.’’ 

• The control measure is not ‘‘absurd, 

unenforceable, or impracticable.’’ 

• The control measure can advance 

the attainment date by at least one year. 

MDE addresses the RACM 

requirement in Section 7.0 and 

Appendix E of the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan. To meet the RACM 

requirement, Maryland must 

demonstrate that it has adopted all 

RACM necessary to move the Baltimore 

NAA toward attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable and to meet 

all RFP requirements. As demonstrated 

above in Sections C and D of this 

document, Maryland has met the RFP 

requirements for the Baltimore NAA. 

MDE used two independently 

developed lists of potential control 

measures for its RACM analysis. The 

first list consists of the RACM analysis 

performed for the Washington, DC 

NAA’s 8-hour ozone plan. The second 

list of measures was developed by the 

Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) 

with MDE in 2006. These measures are 

evaluated in Appendices E–1 and E–2 of 

the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. 

EPA has reviewed MDE’s RACM 

analysis in the TSD for this action. MDE 

evaluated all source categories that 

could contribute meaningful emission 

reductions, and evaluated an extensive 

list of potential control measures. MDE 

considered the time needed to develop 

and adopt regulations and the time it 

would take to see the benefit from these 

measures. EPA concurs with MDE’s 

conclusion that there are no RACM that 

would have advanced the moderate area 

attainment date of 2010 for the 

Baltimore NAA. Therefore, MDE’s 

RACM analysis in the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan is approvable. 

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). EPA’s 

conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to State air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedure for 

determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. 

States must establish VOC and NOx 

MVEBs for each of the milestone years 

up to the attainment year and submit 

the mobile budgets to EPA for approval. 

Upon adequacy determination or 

approval by EPA, States must conduct 

transportation conformity analysis for 

their Transportation Improvement 

Programs (TIPs) and long range 

transportation plans to ensure highway 

vehicle emissions will not exceed 

relevant MVEBs. 

MDE discusses transportation 

conformity in Section 8.0 of the 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. MDE 

describes the methods it used to 

calculate the 2008 mobile emissions 

inventory in Appendix F of the 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. The 

Baltimore NAA MVEB for the 2008 RFP 

is based on the projected 2008 mobile 

source emissions accounting for all 

mobile control measures. The MVEBs 

for the 2008 RFP are shown in Table 10, 

below. 

TABLE 10—BALTIMORE NAA 2008 

RFP MVEBS

VOC (tpd) NOX (tpd) 

41.2 ........................................... 106.8 

In a March 27, 2009 Federal Register 

notice (74 FR 13433), EPA notified the 

public that EPA found that the 2008 

RFP MVEBs in the Baltimore 8-hour 

ozone plan are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes. In 

addition to the budgets being adequate 

for transportation conformity purposes, 

EPA found the procedures Maryland 

used to develop the MVEBs to be 

reasonable. The budgets are identical to 

the projected 2008 on-road mobile 

source emission inventories. Because 

the 2008 RFP MVEBs are adequate for 

transportation conformity purposes and 

the methods MDE used to develop them 

are correct, the 2008 RFP budgets are 

approvable. 

V. What are EPA’s Conclusions? 

EPA’s review of the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory; the 2008 ozone 

projected emission inventory; the 2008 

RFP plan; RFP contingency measures; 

Maryland’s RACM analysis; and 2008 

transportation conformity budgets 

contained in MDE’s June 4, 2007 SIP 

revision submittal for the Baltimore 

NAA fully addressed the CAA’s 

requirements. Therefore, EPA is 

proposing approval of those following 

elements of MDE’s June 4, 2007 

Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 4 / Thursday, January 7, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to the Baltimore NAA’s 2002 

base year emissions inventory; 2008 

ozone projected emission inventory; 

2008 RFP plan; RFP contingency 

measures; RACM analysis; and 2008 

transportation conformity budgets does 

not have Tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

the SIP is not approved to apply in 

Indian country located in the State, and 

EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 23, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2010–17 Filed 1–6–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

48 CFR Parts 928, 931, 932, 933, 935, 

936, 937, 941, 942, 949, 950, 951, and 

952 

RIN 1991–AB88 

Acquisition Regulation: Subchapter 

E—General Contracting Requirements, 

Subchapter F—Special Categories of 

Contracting, and Subchapter G— 

Contract Management 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is proposing to amend the 

Department of Energy Acquisition 

Regulation (DEAR) Subchapters E— 

General Contracting Requirements, F— 

Special Categories of Contracting, and 

G—Contract Management to make 

changes to conform to the FAR, remove 

out-of-date coverage, and to update 

references. DOE will separately propose 

rules for changes to parts 927 and 945, 

respectively. Today’s proposed rule 

does not alter substantive rights or 

obligations under current law. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed rulemaking must be received 

on or before close of business February 

8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: This proposed rule is 

available and you may submit 

comments, identified by DEAR: 

Subchapters E, F, and G and RIN 1991– 

AB88, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail to: 

DEARrulemaking@hq.doe.gov. Include: 

DEAR: Subchapters E, F and G and RIN 

1991–AB88 in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Mail to: U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Procurement and Assistance 

Management, MA–611, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Comments by email are encouraged. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara Binney at (202) 287–1340 or by 

e-mail, barbara.binney@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis 

III. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

E. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act 

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Approval by the Office of the Secretary 

of Energy 

I. Background 

The objective of this action is to 

update the existing Department of 

Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR). 

Subchapters E, F, and G have sections 

that need to be updated to conform to 

the FAR. None of the proposed changes 

are substantive or of a nature to cause 

any significant expense for DOE or its 

contractors. 

II. Section-by-Section Analysis 

Changes are proposed to DEAR parts 

928, 931, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 941, 

942, 949, 950, 951, and 952. No changes 

are proposed for DEAR parts 927, 929, 

930, 934, 938, 939, 940, 943, 944, 945, 

946, 947, and 948. 

DOE proposes to amend the DEAR as 

follows: 

1. Section 932.501–2 is amended in 

paragraph (a)(3) to reflect current 

procedures to state that all requests for 

unusual progress payments shall be sent 

to the DOE or the NNSA Senior 

Procurement Executive to approve or 

deny. 

2. Subpart 932.6 is amended to update 

the DEAR to conform with FAR subpart 

32.6 which was revised by Federal 

Acquisition Circular 2005–027 effective 

October 18, 2008. 

3. Section 935.010 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c) and (d). The 

report process has been changed to an 

electronic submission using the DOE 

Energy Link System (E-Link) at http:// 

www.osti.gov/elink. The contracting 

officer shall require the contractors to 

use E-Link to submit an announcement 

record with each report. 

4. Part 936 redesignates 936.202 to 

936.202–70. 

5. Part 937 is revised to add a new 

subpart, Subpart 937.2—Advisory and 

Assistance Services and section 937.204 

Guidelines for determining availability 

of personnel. Sections 937.204(a), (b), 

(d) and (e) are added to conform to FAR 

37.204 to provide the DOE guidelines 

for determining availability of sufficient 

personnel with the requisite training 

and capabilities to perform the 

evaluation or analysis of proposals. It 

also clarifies the DOE officials 

responsible for making the 

determinations prescribed at FAR 

37.204 (a), (b), (d) and (e). 

6. Section 941.201–70 is amended to 

update the DOE Order reference by 

removing the remainder of the sentence 

after the second ‘‘FAR’’ and adding in 

its place ‘‘part 41 and the Department of 

Energy (DOE) Order 430.2B, 

Departmental Energy, Renewable Energy 

and Transportation Management, or its 

successor.’’ 

7. Section 942.803 is amended at 

paragraph (c) by removing ‘‘as discussed 

in 942.70 Audit Services’’ which is no 

longer a subpart. 

8. Section 949.101 is revised to add 

‘‘Senior’’ before ‘‘Procurement 

Executive.’’ to conform the use of the 

Procurement Executive title with the 

FAR. 

9. Subpart 949.5 is removed and 

reserved. There is no longer a need for 

a DEAR termination clause for 

Architect-Engineer contracts. 

10. Section 951.102 paragraph (e)(4) is 

amended to remove the ‘‘(iii)’’ in the 

paragraph numbering. 

11. Section 952.247–70 is amended to 

remove repetitive language. 

12. The rule text is amended as noted 

in the table at paragraph 16, by 

removing ‘‘FAR’’ or ‘‘FAR part’’ and 

adding ‘‘48 CFR’’ or ‘‘48 CFR part’’ or 

by updating other CFR citations. Section 

931.205–47(h)(1) is amended by 

changing the capitalization of the word 

‘‘part’’ in two places. Section 952 has 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS