ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956; FRL

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; 2002 Base

Year Emission Inventory, Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Céntingency Measures,

Reasonably Available Control Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the

Philadelphia 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 Maryland portion ofthe Philadelphia moderate 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 revision because it satisfies the emission inventory, RFP, RACM, and RFP

contingency measures, transportation conformity requirements for areas classified as moderate

nonattaimrient 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 ofthe CAA and EPA’s regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days from date of

publication].

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0956 by one ofthe following methods:

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

B. E-mail: femandez.cristina@epa.gov.

C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956, 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 previously-listed EPA Region III address. Such 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-2009-0956. EPA’s

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and

may be made available online at 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 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 information unless you provide it in the body of your

comment. If you 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 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. IfEPA

2
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 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 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 ofthe Environment, 1800

Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, orby e-mail

at pino.mariaepa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or

“our” is used, we mean EPA.

The following is provided to aid in locating infonnation in this document.

I. What Action is EPA Taking?

II. What is the Background of This Action?

3
III. What is EPA’s Evaluation ofthe 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 ofthe Environment (MDE) on June 4, 2007 to meet the emissions inventory and

RFP requirements ofthe CAA for the Maryland portion ofthe Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic

City moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (Philadelphia NAA). 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 of 2002 through 2008. The volatile organic compound (VOC)

MVEB is 2.3 tons per day (tpd) and the nitrogen oxides (NOx) MVEB is 7.9 tpd. EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision because 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 further progress in

reducing ozone precursors. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision pursuant 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-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million

pm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on

4
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 pre-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 respect to the 8-hour ozone standard. These, actions became

effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the Philadelphia NAA. The

Philadelphia NAA includes Cecil County, Maryland; five counties in Pennsylvania; nine counties

in New Jersey; and the entire State of Delaware.

These designations triggered the CAA’s section 11 0(a)( 1) requirement that states must submit

attainment demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to EPA by no later than threeyears 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 ifthat area had a 1-hour design value at or above 0.12 1 ppm (the lowest 1-hour

design value in Table 1 ofsubpart2). Based on this criterion, the Philadelphia NAA was

classified under subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area.

5
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 ofthe 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 pians, 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) ofthe 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.

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 www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0956.

6
On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensive plan for the Maryland portion of the

Philadelphia NAA (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, a RACM

analysis, contingency measures, on-road VOC and NOx MVEBs, and the 2002 base year

emissions inventory. These SIP revisions were subject to noticeand comment by the public and

the State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. All sections ofthis SIP

submittal with the exception ofthe attainment demonstration plan will be discussed in this

rulemaking. The attainment demonstration plan 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 of actual emissions from

all sources and is required by section 1 72(c)(3) ofthe 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 Cecil County 2002 base year VOC and

NOx emissions inventories is included in Table 1, below.

7
Table 1. Cecil County 2002 Base. Year VOC & NOx Emissions in Tons per Day (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 Target Levels

The process for determining the emissions baseline from which the 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 of emissipns 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 Philadelphia 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.

8
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 1 82(b)(1) ofthe CAA for the 8-

hour NAAQS. In this situation, a moderate nonattainment area is subject to RFP under section

1 72(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 51.91 0(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 Maryland portion of the Philadelphia NAA under the 1-hour ozone standard had the same

boundary as the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia NAA under the 1997 8-hour ozone

standard. The Philadelphia NAA under the 1-hour ozone standard was classified as severe. EPA

approved Maryland’s 15% plan for its portion of the Philadelphia severe ozone nonattainment

area on July 29, 1997 (62 FR 40457). Therefore, according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for

Cecil County may use either NOx or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve the 15

percent emission reduction requirement.

According to section 1 82(b)(l)(D) ofthe 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.

9
Maryland sets out its calculations for the 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 of the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan, and shown in Table 2, below.

Table 2. Cecil County 2002 Anthropogenic Base Year Inventory (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 calculated the non-creditable 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. 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 and NOx inventories adjusted

relative to 2008 and VOC and NOx target levels for 2008 are found in Table 5-4 and Appendix C

of the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan, and are summarized in Table 4, below.

10
Table 4. Cecil County 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations (Ozone Season tpd)

Description Formula VOC NOx

A 2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year Inventory 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 of RFP

Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2008 projected VOC and NOx

inventories in Section 4.0 and Appendix B ofthe Cecil County8-hour ozone plan. Projected

uncontrolled and controlled 2008 VOC and NOx 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 them to 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 if 2008 RFP is met in Cecil County, the total projected controlled emissions must

be compared to the target levels calculated in the previous section of this document. As shown

11
below in Table 6, the total VOC and NOx emission projections meet the 2008 emission targets.

Therefore, the 2008 RFP in Cecil County is demonstrated.

Table 6. Determination of whether 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 if A < B Yes Yes

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

The contrOl meaure Maryland took credit for in order to meet the RFP requirement in Cecil

County are described in Section 6.0 of the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. Maryland used a

combination of on-road mobile, non-road mobile, and area source control measures to meet the

REP requirement for Cecil County.

The on-road mobile measures Maryland used to meet 2008 REP in Cecil County include

enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance (enhanced J/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 REP 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 ofthe MOBILE model, and found them to be reasonable.

Maryland calculated the on-road mobile 2008 emission reductions to be 1.75 tpd VOC and 3.78

tpdNOx.

12
The non-road measures Maryland used to meet 2008 RFP in Cecil County 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 1.18 tpd

VOC and 0.28 tpd NOx.

The other measures that Maryland used to meet RFP in Cecil County 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 ofthese 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 0.20 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

13
0.39 tpdVOC.

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 commercial products rule to be 0.14 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 0.32 tpd

VOC.

Table 7 summarizes the emission reductions that Maryland claimed in the Cecil County 8-hour

ozone plan to meet RFP in Cecil County. 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 Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. The total 2008 projected

emission reductions calculated by EPA are greater than the 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.

14
Table 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 1 72(c)(9) ofthe CAA requires a state with a moderate or above ozone nonattainmeñt

area to include sufficient additional contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the area fails to

meet RFP. The same provision ofthe CAA also requires that the contingency measures must be

fuily 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 Cecil County. MDE discusses its Cecil County contingency measures forfailure to meet RFP

in Section 10.2 of the Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. MDE calculated the contingency VOC

reduction for Cecil County as shown in Table 8, below. The RFP contingency requirement may

15
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. Cecil County 2008 RFP Contingency Measure Target Level Calculations

To determine if Maryland met the three percent contingency measure requirement for Cecil

County, 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 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 Target Level for 2008 15.20 13.99

Contingency. measure requirement met if A < B Yes Yes

F. RACM Analysis

Pursuant to section 1 72(c)( 1) ofthe CAA, states are required to implement all RACM as

expeditiously as practicable for each nonattainment area. Specifically, section 1 72(c)( 1) states

Description Formula VOC NOx

A 2002 RateOf Progress Base Year Inventory 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 Reduction Requirements C * F 0.51 0

H Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008 C — E — G 15.20 13.99

16
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, 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 not reasonably available

control measures exist that 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 ofthe Cecil County 8-

hour ozone plan. To meet the RACM requirement, Maryland must demonstrate that it has

adopted all RACM necessary to move Cecil County and the Philadelphia NAA toward

attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to meet all REP requirements. As demonstrated

17
above in Sections C and D ofthis document, Maryland has met the RFP requirements for Cecil

County.

MDE used two independently developed lists of potential 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 of measures 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 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 Cecil County and the Philadelphia NAA. 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 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 ofthe national ambient air quality standards.

18
States must establish VOC and NOx MVEBs for each ofthe 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 ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan.

MDE describes the methods it used to calculate the 2008 mobile emissions inventory in

Appendix F ofthe Cecil County 8-hour ozone plan. The Cecil County 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. Cecil County 2008 RFP MVEBs

VOC (tpd) NOx (tpd)

2.3 7.9

In a March 27, 2009 Federal Register notice (74FR.13433), EPA notified the public that EPA

found that the 2008 REP 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 REP MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes

and the methods MDE used to develop them are correct, the 2008 REP budgets are approvable.

19
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. 74 10(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 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 ‘significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and

Budget under Executive Order 12866 (5.8 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• does not impose an information collection burden under the 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 of small

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

20
o does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law

104-4);

• •does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR

43255, August 10, 1999);

o 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) ofthe National Technology Transfer and

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

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).

21
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.

William C. Early, Acting

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

DEC 2

Dated: wnM. Garvin, 2

Regional Administrator,

Region III.

22