ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956; FRL Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; 2002 Base

YearEmission Inventory, Reasonable FurtherProgress Plan, Céntingency Measures, Reasonably Available Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Philadelphia 1997 8-HourModerate Ozone NonattainmentArea AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve arevisionto the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP) to meetthe 2002 base year emissions inventory, the reasonable furtherprogress (RFP) plan, RFP contingency measure, andreasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA) forthe Maryland portion ofthe Philadelphiamoderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA is also proposing to approve the transportation conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEB5) and associated with this revision. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisionbecause it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, RACM, and RFP contingency measures, transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as moderate nonattaimrient forthe 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and demonstrates furtherprogress 

### inreducing ozone precursors. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisionpursuantto section 110 and part D ofthe CAA and EPA’s regulations. DATES: Written comments mustbe received on orbefore [insert date 30 days from date of publication]. ADDRESSES: Submityour comments, identified by Docket ID NumberEPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956 by one ofthe following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Followthe on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. E-mail: femandez.cristina@epa.gov. C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956, CristinaFernandez, Associate Director, Office ofAir Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours ofoperation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.
Instructions: Directyour comments to DocketID No. EPA- R03-OAR-2009-0956. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included inthe public docket without change, and may be made available online atwww.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 restrictedby statute. Do not submit informationthat you considerto be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

### www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact informationunless you provide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as partof the commentthat is placed inthe public docket and made available onthe Internet. Ifyou submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou include your name and other contact information inthe body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
2cannotread your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contactyou for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use ofspecial characters, any form ofencryption, and be free ofany defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed inthe www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is notpublicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is notplaced onthe Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docketmaterials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours atthe Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available atthe Maryland Department ofthe Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MariaA. Pino, (215) 814-2181, orby e-mail atpino.mariaepa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughoutthis document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
The following is provided to aid in locating infonnation inthis document. I. What Action is EPA Taking? II. What is the Background ofThis Action?
3III. What is EPA’s Evaluation ofthe Revision? IV. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews
I. What Action is EPA Taking? EPA is proposing to approve arevisionto the Maryland SIP submitted by the Maryland Department ofthe Environment (MDE) on June 4, 2007 to meetthe emissions inventory and RFP requirements ofthe CAA forthe Marylandportion ofthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (PhiladelphiaNAA). EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the 15 percent REP plan and associated projected 2008 emission inventories, the contingency measures for failure to meet 2008 REP, the RACM analysis, and the REP 2008 MVEBs. The REP plan demonstrates that emissions will be reduced 15 percent for the period of2002 through 2008. The volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEB is 2.3 tons per day (tpd) andthe nitrogen oxides (NOx) MVEB is 7.9 tpd. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisionbecause it satisfies REP, contingency measure, RACM, REP transportation conformity, and emissions inventory requirements for areas classified as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozOne NAAQS and demonstrates furtherprogress in reducing ozone precursors. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revisionpursuant to section 110 and part D ofthe CAA and EPA’s regulations.

II. What is the Background for This Action? In 1997, EPA revised the health-basedNAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million pm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA setthe 8-hour ozone standardbased on

4scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longerperiods oftime, than was understood whenthe pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determinedthatthe 8-hour standard would be more protective ofhuman health, especially children and adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with apre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for
areas across the country with respectto the 8-hour ozone standard. These, actions became effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the PhiladelphiaNAA. The PhiladelphiaNAA includes Cecil County, Maryland; five counties in Pennsylvania; nine counties inNew Jersey; and the entire State ofDelaware.
These designations triggered the CAA’ s section 110(a)(1) requirementthat states must submit attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to EPA by no laterthan threeyears after the promulgation ofaNAAQS. 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 fortheir nonattainment areas to the EPA by no laterthan three years from the effective date ofdesignation, that is, by June 15, 2007.

Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart 2 ofthe CAA based on its 8- hour design value ifthat areahad a 1-hour design value at or above 0.121 ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in Table 1 ofsubpart2). Based onthis criterion, the PhiladelphiaNAA was classified under subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area.
5OnNovember 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), as revised on June 8,2007(72 FR 31727), EPA published the Phase 2 final rule for implementation ofthe 8-hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 2 rule addressed the RFP control andplanning obligations as they apply to areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Among otherthings, the Phase 1 and 2 rules outline the SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated as moderate nonattainment. The rules furtherrequire thatmodeling and attainment demonstrations, reasonable furtherprogress pians, reasonably available control measures, projection year emission inventories, motorvehicle emissions budgets, and contingency measures were all due by June 15, 2007 (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).
Section 182(b)(1) ofthe CAA and EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone implementationrule (40 CFR 51.910) require each 8-hour ozone nonattainment area designated moderate and above to submit an emissions inventory and RFP Plan, forreview and approval into its SIP, that describes how the areawill achieve actual emissions reductions ofVOC andNOx from abaseline emissions inventory.

III. What is EPA’s Evaluation ofthe Revision? EPA’s analysis and findings are discussed in this proposedrulemaking and a more detailed discussion is contained inthe Technical Support Documentforthis Proposal whichis available on line at www.regulations.gov, DocketnumberEPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956.

6On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensiveplan forthe Marylandportion ofthe PhiladelphiaNAA (i.e., Cecil County) to address the CAA’s 8-hour ozone attainment requirements that were identified earlier (the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan). The SIP submittal included an attainment demonstration plan, RFP plans for 2008 and 2009, aRACM analysis, contingency measures, on-road VOC andNOx MVEBs, andthe 2002 base year emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were subjectto noticeand commentby the public and the State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. All sections ofthis SIP submittal with the exception ofthe attainment demonstrationplan will be discussed in this rulemaking. The attainment demonstrationplan sections ofthis SIP submittal will be discussed in a separate rulemaking.
A. Base Year Emissions Inventory An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory ofactual emissions from all sources and is required by section 172(c)(3) ofthe CAA. For ozone nonattainment areas, the emissions inventory needs to contain VOC andNOx 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 ofCecil County 2002 base year VOC and NOx emissions inventories is included in Table 1, below.

7Table 1. Cecil County 2002 Base.YearVOC & NOx Emissions in Tons perDay (tpd) Emission Source Category 

### VOC NOx Point 0.28 0.02 Stationary Area 4.93 0.20 Non-Road Mobile 8.37 2.97 On-Road Mobile 4.00 14.22 Total (excluding Biogenics) 42.94

. 0 Biogenics 17.58 17.40 B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 2008 R1?P TargetLevels The process for determining the emissions baseline from whichthe RFP reductions are calculated is described in section 1 82(b)(1) ofthe 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 ofemissipns benefits resulting fromthe Federal MotorVehicle 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 determinedby the State using EPA’s on-road mobile source emissions modeling software, MOBILE6. The FMVCP and RVP emission reductions are then removed fromthe 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 fromthe adjustedbase year inventory. These reductions are then subtracted fromthe adjusted base year inventory to establish the emissions target forthe RFP milestone year (2008).

Formoderate areas like the PhiladelphiaNAA, the CAA specifies a 15 percentreduction in
ozone precursor emissions over an initial six yearperiod. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement for areas thatwere also designatednonattainment and classified as moderate or higherfor the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA providedthat an area classified.
8as moderate orhigher thathas the same boundaries as an area, or is entirely composed ofseveral
areas orportions ofareas, forwhich EPA fully approved a 15 percentplan forthe 1-hour NAAQS, is considered to have metthe requirements ofsection 1 82(b)(1) ofthe CAA forthe 8- hourNAAQS. In this situation, amoderate nonattainment area is subjectto RFP under section 172(c)(2) ofthe CAA and shall submit, no laterthan 3 years after designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision that meets the requirements of40 CFR 51.91 0(b)(2). The RFP SIP revision must provide for a 15 percent emissionreduction (eitherNOx and/or VOC) accounting for any growththat occurs during the six year period following the baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.
The Marylandportion ofthe PhiladelphiaNAA underthe 1-hour ozone standard had the same boundary as the Maryland portion ofthe PhiladelphiaNAA underthe 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The PhiladelphiaNAA underthe 1-hour ozone standard was classified as severe. EPA approved Maryland’s 15% plan for its portion ofthe Philadelphia severe ozone nonattainment
area on July 29, 1997 (62 FR40457). Therefore, according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for Cecil County may use eitherNOx or VOC emissions reductions (orboth) to achieve the 15 percent emissionreductionrequirement. According to section 1 82(b)(l)(D) ofthe CAA, emissionreductions thatresulted from the FMVCP and Reid Vapor Pressure RVP rules promulgated priorto 1990 are not creditable for achieving RFP emission reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by subtracting the VOC andNOX emission reductions that are expectedto occurbetween 2002 and the future milestone years due to the FMVCP and RVP rules.
9Maryland sets out its calculations forthe adjusted base year inventory and 2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. Step 1. Calculate the Cecil County 2002 anthropogenic base year inventory. This is found in Table 5-1 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan, and shown in Table 2, below. Table 2. Cecil County 2002 Anthropogenic Base YearInventory (Ozone Season tpd)

Source Category VOC NOx Point 0.28 0.02 Area 4.93 0.20 Non-Road 8.37 2.97 On-Road 4.00 14.22 Total 17.58 17.40 Step 2. Maryland calculatedthe non-creditable emissionreductions between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motorvehicle emissions with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating the difference. See Table 3, below. Table 3. Cecil County Non-Creditable Emission Reductions (Ozone Season tpd)

Source Category VOC NOx (i) 2002 On-Road 5.42 16.09 (ii) 2008 On-Road 4.73 13.90 Non-creditable Reductions (i)

— (ii) 0.69 2.19 Step 3. Maryland’s calculations ofthe Cecil County 2002 VOC andNOx inventories adjusted relative to 2008 and VOC and NOx target levels for 2008 are found in Table 5-4 and Appendix C ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan, and are summarized in Table 4, below.

10Table 4. Cecil County 2008 RFP TargetLevel Calculations (Ozone Season tpd) Description Formula VOC NOx A 2002 Rate-OfProgress Base YearInventory 17.58 17.40 B FMVCP!RVP Reductions Between 2002 And 2008 0.69 2.19 C 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 A

- B 16.89 15.21 D RFP Reductions Totaling 15% 7% 8% E Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 C * D 1.18 1.22 F TargetLevelfor2008 C-E 15.71 13.99

C. Projected Inventories and Determination ofRFP Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2008 projectedVOC andNOx inventories in Section 4.0 and Appendix B ofthe Cecil County8-hourozone plan. Projected uncontrolled and controlled 2008 VOC andNOx emissions are found in Appendix C ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. EPA reviewed the procedures Maryland used to develop its projected inventories and found themto be reasonable. Projected controlled 2008 emissions for Cecil County are summarized in Table 4-3 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. The data from Table 4-3 is presented below, in Table 5, below. Table 5. Cecil County 2008 Projected Controlled VOC & NOx Emissions (tpd) Emission Source VOC Emissions NOx Emissions Category (tpd) (tpd) Point 0.39 0.02 Area 4.75 0.23 Non-road 7.23 2.87 Mobile 2.29 7.93 Total 14.65 11.05 To determine if2008 RFP is met in Cecil County, the total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target levels calculated inthe previous section ofthis document. As shown

11below in Table 6, the total VOC andNOx emissionprojections meetthe 2008 emission targets. Therefore, the 2008 RFP in Cecil County is demonstrated. Table 6. Determination ofwhether RFP is met in 2008 in Cecil County

. VOC Emissions NOx Emissions Description (tpd) (tpd) •A Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions 14.65 11.05 B Target Level for2008 15.71 13.99 RFP met ifA < B Yes Yes

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP The contrOl meaure Maryland took credit for in orderto meetthe RFP requirement in Cecil County are described in Section 6.0 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. Marylandused a combination ofon-roadmobile, non-road mobile, and area source control measures to meetthe REP requirement for Cecil County.
The on-road mobile measures Marylandusedto meet 2008 REP in Cecil County include enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (enhanced J/M)
, Tier I vehicle emission standards and new federal evaporative testprocedures (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 REP using the MOBILE model forthese on-road mobile measures. EPA reviewedthe procedures thatMDE used to develop its projected inventories, including the use ofthe MOBILE model, and found themto be reasonable. Maryland calculated the on-road mobile 2008 emission reductions to be 1.75 tpd VOC and 3.78 tpdNOx.

12The non-road measures Marylandused to meet 2008 RFP in Cecil County include non-road small gasoline engines, non-road diesel engines (TierI and Tier II), marine engine standards, emission standards for large spark engines, and reformulated gasoline used in non-road motor vehicles and equipment. Maryland usedthe NONROAD model to calculate emission reductions from these non-road measures. EPA reviewedthe procedures that MDE used to develop its projected inventories, including the use ofthe NONROAD model, and found them to be reasonable. Maryland calculated the non-road mobile 2008 emission reductions to be 1.18 tpd VOC and 0.28 tpdNOx. The other measures that Marylandused to meetRFP in Cecil County are railroad engine standards (Tier 2), the consumer and commercial products rule (Phase I), the architectural and industrial (AIM) coatings rule, andthe portable fuel containers rule (Phase I). In the Technical SupportDocument (TSD) forthis action, EPA evaluates each ofthese measures and calculated the projected 2008 emission for each measure. For details, please referto EPA’s TSD.
The tier 2 railroad engine standards for newly manufactured and remanufactured diesel-powered locomotives and locomotive engines took effectin 2000. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from railroad engine to be 0.20 tpdNOx.

A federal measure requires reformulation ofAIM coatings, which are field-applied coatings used by industry, contractors, and homeowners to coathouses, buildings, highway surfaces, and industrial equipment for decorative orprotective purposes. Maryland’s AIM rule was effective on March 29, 2004. EPA calculated 2008 emissionreductions fromMaryland’s AIM rule to be

130.39 tpdVOC.
The phase I commercial and consumerproducts rule requires the reformulation ofcertain consumerproducts to reduce their VOC content. Maryland’s consumerproducts rule was effective on August 18, 2003. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from Maryland’s consumer and commercial products rule to be 0.14 tpd VOC.
The phase I portable fuel containers rule introduces performance standards forportable fuel containers and spouts, and is intendedto reduce emissions from storage, transport and refueling activities. Maryland’s portable fuel containerrule was effective on January 21, 2002. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from Maryland’s portable fuel containers rule to be 0.32 tpd VOC.
Table 7 summarizes the emissionreductions thatMaryland claimed inthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan to meet RFP in Cecil County. For certain control measures, the 2008 projected emission reductions calculatedby EPA differ fromthe 2008 projected emission reductions that MDE is taking credit for in the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. The total 2008 projected emission reductions calculatedby EPA are greaterthanthe emission reductions claimed by MDE in the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. Therefore, the emission reductions claimed in the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan are approvable.

14Table 7. Control Measures and 2008 Emission Reductions in Cecil County ontrol Measure VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd) On-road Mobile Measures 1.75 3.78 Non-road Model 1.18 0.28 Railroads (Tier 2) 0.00 0.15 OTC

- Consumer Products Phase 1 0.14 0.00 OTC

—AIM Coatings 0.39 0.00 OTC

—Portable Fuel Containers Phase 1 0.26 0.00 Total 3.71 4.21 E. Contingency Measures Section 172(c)(9) ofthe CAA requires a state with amoderate or above ozone nonattainmeñt areato include sufficient additional contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the areafails to meet RFP. The same provision ofthe CAA also requires thatthe contingency measures mustbe fuily adopted control measures orrules. Upon failure to meet an RFP milestone requirement, the state mustbe able to implementthe contingency measures without any furtherrulemaking activities. Upon implementation ofsuch measures, additional emissionreductions ofat least 3 percent ofthe adjusted 2002 baseline emissions mustbe achieved. For more information on contingency measures, see the April 16, 1992 General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the November29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour ozone implementation rule (70 FR 71612).

To meetthe requirements for contingency emission reductions, EPA allows states to useNOx emission reductions to substitute for VOC emissionreductions intheir contingency plans. However, MDE chose to use only VOC reductions to meetthe contingency measure requirement in Cecil County. MDE discusses its Cecil County contingencymeasures forfailure to meetRFP in Section 10.2 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. MDE calculatedthe contingency VOC reduction for Cecil County as shown in Table 8, below. The RFP contingencyrequirement may

15be met by including in the RFP plan a demonstration of 18 percentVOC & NOx RFP. The additional 3 percentreduction above the 15 percentrequirementmustbe attributed to specific measures. Table 8. Cecil County 2008 RFP Contingency Measure TargetLevel Calculations

To determine ifMarylandmetthe three percent contingency measure requirement for Cecil County, the total projected controlled emissions mustbe comparedto the contingency measure target levels calculated above. As shown below in Table 9, the total VOC andNOx emission projections meetthe 2008 contingency measure targets. Therefore, MDE has metthe contingency measure requirementfor Cecil County.
Table 9. Evaluation ofthe Cecil County 2008 RFP Contingency Measure Reiuirement Description VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd) A Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions 14.65 11.05 B Contingency Measure TargetLevel for 2008 15.20 13.99 Contingency. measure requirement met ifA < B Yes Yes

F. RACM Analysis Pursuantto section 172(c)(1) ofthe CAA, states are required to implement all RACM as expeditiously as practicable for each nonattainment area. Specifically, section 172(c)(1) states Description Formula VOC NOx A 2002 RateOfProgress Base YearInventory 17.58 17.40 B FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 And 2008 0.69 2.19 C 2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 A

- B 16.89 15.21 D RFP Reductions Totaling 15% 0.07 0.08 E RFP Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 C * D 1.18 1.22 F Contingency Percentage 3% 0% C Contingency Emission ReductionRequirements C * F 0.51 0 H Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008 C

—E

— G 15.20 13.99

16the following: “In general-----Suchplanprovisions shall provide forthe implementation ofall 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, ofreasonably available control technology) and shall provide for attainment ofthe 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 ofthe RACM analysis is to determine whether or notreasonably available control measures existthatwould advance the attainment date for nonattainment areas. Control measures that would advance the attainment date are considered RACM and mustbe included in the SIP. RACM are necessary to ensure thatthe attainment date is achieved “as expeditious as practicable.” RACM is definedby the EPA as anypotential 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 ofthe Cecil County 8- hour ozone plan. To meetthe RACM requirement, Maryland must demonstrate that ithas adopted all RACM necessary to move Cecil County and the PhiladelphiaNAAtoward attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet all REP requirements. As demonstrated
17above in Sections C and D ofthis document, Maryland has metthe RFP requirements for Cecil County.

MDE usedtwo independently developed lists ofpotential control measures for its RACM analysis. The first list consists ofthe RACM analysis performed for the Washington, DC NAA’ s 8-hour ozone plan. The second list ofmeasures was developed by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) with MDE in 2006. These measures are evaluated in Appendices E-l and E-2 of the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan.
EPA has reviewedMDE’s RACM analysis inthe TSD forthis action. MDE evaluated all source categories that could contribute meaningful emissionreductions, and evaluated an extensive list ofpotential control measures. MDE considered the time needed to develop and adopt regulations and the time itwouldtake to see the benefit fromthese measures. EPA concurs with MDE’s conclusion that there are no RACM thatwould have advanced the moderate area attainment date of2010 for Cecil County and the PhiladelphiaNAA. Therefore, MDE’s RACM analysis in the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan is approvable.
G. Transportation Conformity Budgets Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). EPA’s conformityrule requires thattransportationplans, programs andprojects conform to state air quality implementationplans and establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether or notthey do. Conformityto a SIP means thattransportation activities will notproduce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment ofthe national ambient air quality standards.

18States must establish VOC andNOx MVEBs for each ofthe milestone years up to the attainment year and submitthe mobile budgets to EPA for approval. Upon adequacy determination or approval by EPA, states must conducttransportation conformity analysis fortheirTransportation ImprovementPrograms (TIPs) and long range transportationplans to ensure highway vehicle emissions will not exceed relevant MVEBs.

MDE discusses transportation conformity in Section 8.0 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. MDE describes the methods itused to calculate the 2008 mobile emissions inventory in Appendix F ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. The Cecil County MVEB forthe 2008 RFP is based on the projected 2008 mobile source emissions accounting for all mobile control measures. The MVEBs forthe 2008 RFP are shown in Table 10, below. Table 10. Cecil County 2008 RFP MVEBs

VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd) 2.3 7.9 In a March 27, 2009 Federal Registernotice (74FR.13433), EPA notifiedthe public thatEPA found that the 2008 REP MVEBs in the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan are adequate for transportation conformitypurposes. In addition to the budgets being adequate fortransportation conformitypurposes, EPA foundthe procedures Maryland usedto develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. The budgets are identical to the projected 2008 on-road mobile source emission inventories. Because the 2008 REP MVEBs are adequate fortransportation conformitypurposes and the methods MDE used to develop them are correct, the 2008 REP budgets are approvable.

19V. What are EPA’s Conclusions? EPA’s review ofthe 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 conformitybudgets contained in MDE’s June 4, 2007 SIP revision submittal for Cecil County fully addressed the CAA’s requirements. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval ofthose elements ofMDE’s June 4, 2007 Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed inthis document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administratoris required to approve a SIP submissionthat complies with the provisions ofthe CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 74 10(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, inreviewing SIP submissions, EPA’ s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meetthe criteria ofthe 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 ‘significantregulatory action” subjectto review by the Office ofManagement and Budgetunder Executive Order 12866 (5.8 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burdenunderthe provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

20o does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

• •does nothave Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

o is not an economically significantregulatory action based on health or safetyrisks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significantregulatory action subjectto Executive Order 13211(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subjectto requirements ofSection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and AdvancementAct of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application ofthose requirements would be inconsistentwith the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authorityto 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).

21In addition, this proposedrule 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 nothave 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 itwill not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments orpreempttribal law.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Airpollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. William C. Early, Acting Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Regional Administrator 

### DEC 

## 2 Dated: wn M. Garvin, 

## 2 Regional Administrator, Region III.

22