Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 75191

§ 10.37 Establishment of Advisory 

Committees. 

(a) Advisory committees. To promote 

and maintain the public’s confidence in 

tax advisors, the Director of the Office 

of Professional Responsibility is 

authorized to establish one or more 

advisory committees composed of at 

least five individuals authorized to 

practice before the Internal Revenue 

Service. Under procedures prescribed 

by the Director, an advisory committee 

may review and make recommendations 

regarding professional standards or best 

practices for tax advisors, or more 

particularly, whether a practitioner may 

have violated §§ 10.35 or 10.36. 

(b) Effective date. This section is 

effective on the date that final 

regulations are published in the Federal 

Register. 

6. Section 10.93 is revised to read as 

follows:

§ 10.93 Effective date. 

Except as otherwise provided in each 

section and subject to § 10.91, Part 10 is 

applicable on July 26, 2002.

Mark E. Matthews, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

Approved: December 19, 2003. 

George B. Wolfe, 

Deputy General Counsel, Office of the 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 03–31898 Filed 12–29–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[MD146–3106; FRL–7603–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; The 2005 ROP Plan for the 

Baltimore Severe One-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area: Revisions to the 

Plan’s Emissions Inventories and 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets To 

Reflect MOBILE6

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Maryland. These revisions amend the 

Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area’s (the Baltimore 

area’s) rate-of-progress (ROP) plan for 

the 2005 milestone year. The intent of 

these revisions is to update the plan’s 

emission inventories and motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) to reflect 

the use of MOBILE6 while continuing to 

demonstrate that the ROP requirement 

for 2005 will be met. The State of 

Maryland also submitted revisions 

which amend the contingency measures 

associated with the 2005 ROP plan. 

These revisions are being proposed for 

approval in accordance with the Clean 

Air Act (the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before January 29, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be 

submitted either by mail or 

electronically. Written comments 

should be mailed to Martin T. Kotsch, 

Mailcode 3AP23, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Electronic comments should be 

sent either to Kotsch.Martin@EPA.gov or 

to http://www.regulations.gov, which is 

an alternative method for submitting 

electronic comments to EPA. To submit 

comments, please follow the detailed 

instructions described in Part 4 of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. 

Copies of the documents relevant to this 

action are available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Martin T. Kotsch, Energy, Radiation and 

Indoor Environment Branch, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 

Arch Street, Mail Code 3AP23, 

Philadelphia Pennsylvania 19103–

20209, (215) 814–3335, or by e-mail at 

Kotsch.Martin@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Clean Air Act Requirements 

The Clean Air Act (the Act) requires 

that for certain ozone nonattainment 

areas, states are to submit plans 

demonstrating a reduction in volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions of 

at least three percent per year, grouped 

in consecutive three year periods, 

through the area’s designated attainment 

date. This is known as the rate-ofprogress (ROP), also referred to as the 

reasonable further progress (RFP), 

requirement of the Act. The first ROP 

requirement covers the period 1990–

1996 and is commonly known as the 15 

Percent Plan. Subsequent reductions are 

required by the end of serial three year 

intervals beginning after the milestone 

year 1996 (i.e., ROP milestone years for 

the Baltimore area are 1999, 2002, 

2005). Section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act 

allows states to substitute nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) emission reductions for 

VOC emission reductions in post-1996 

ROP plans. To qualify for SIP credit in 

ROP plans, emission reduction 

measures, whether mandatory under the 

Act or adopted at the state’s discretion, 

must ensure real, permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. 

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

ozone nonattainment, areas, classified 

as moderate or above nonattainment, to 

adopt contingency measures to be 

implemented should the area fail to 

achieve ROP or to attain the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for ozone by its statutory attainment 

date. In addition, section 182(c)(9) of the 

Act requires ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as serious or above 

nonattainment to adopt contingency 

measures to be implemented if the area 

fails to meet any applicable milestone. 

Under EPA’s transportation 

conformity rule, an ROP plan is a 

‘‘control strategy’’ SIP (62 FR 43780, 

August 15, 1997). Among other things, 

a control strategy SIP identifies and 

establishes the motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) to which an area’s 

transportation improvement program 

and long range transportation plan must 

conform. Conformity to a control 

strategy SIP means that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. The State of Maryland is 

required to identify MVEBs for both 

NOX and VOCs in the Baltimore area’s 

ROP plan for the 2005 milestone year.

EPA previously approved the 2005 

ROP plan for the Baltimore area (66 FR 

48209, September 19, 2001) which 

included mobile emissions inventories 

for the years 1990 and 2005 and 

identified MVEBs for the milestone year 

2005 based on the EPA emissions model 

MOBILE5. 

The attainment date for the Baltimore 

severe ozone nonattainment area is 

2005. This rulemaking addresses the SIP 

revisions submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

to amend the Baltimore area’s 2005 ROP 

plan to reflect the use of the new EPA 

emissions model MOBILE6. In this 

rulemaking, EPA is proposing to 

approve these revisions to the Baltimore 

area’s ROP plan for the 2005 attainment 

year. 

II. Maryland’s SIP Revisions 

On November 3, 2003, MDE 

submitted proposed SIP revisions, and 

requested that EPA parallel process its 

approval of those SIP revisions 

concurrent with the State’s process for

75192 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

1Memorandum, ‘‘Policy Guidance on the Use of 

MOBILE6 for SIP development and Transportation 

Conformity,’’ issued January 18, 2002. A copy of 

this memorandum can be found on EPA’s Web site 

at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/traqconf.htm.

2Section 182(b)(1)(B) of the Act defines the 

baseline year of emissions as ‘‘the total amount of 

actual VOC and NOX emissions from all 

anthropogenic sources in the area during the 

calendar year of 1990. This section prohibits 

crediting the ROP plan with the reductions in the 

baseline the emissions that would be eliminated by 

the FMVCP regulations promulgated by January 1, 

1990. It also excludes any reductions associated 

from the RVP regulations promulgated at the time 

of enactment.

amending its SIP. As previously stated, 

these proposed SIP revisions revise the 

1990 and 2005 motor vehicle emissions 

inventories and the 2005 MVEBs of the 

Baltimore area’s 2005 ROP plan to 

reflect the use of MOBILE6. The 

November 3, 2003 submittal 

demonstrates that the new levels of 

motor vehicle emissions calculated 

using MOBILE6 continue to 

demonstrate the required ROP for the 

Baltimore area by 2005. 

Table 1 below summarizes the revised 

motor vehicle emissions inventories for 

the Baltimore area in tons per day (tpd). 

The revised 1990 base year inventories 

were updated using the MOBILE6 

model. The 2005 inventories were 

developed using MOBILE6 and the 

latest planning assumptions, including 

2002 vehicle registration data, vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT), speeds, fleet mix, 

and SIP control measures.

TABLE 1.—MARYLAND’S REVISED MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS INVENTORIES

Nonattainment area 

1990 2005 

VOC

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

VOC

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

Baltimore .......................................................................................................................................................... 165.14 228.21 55.3 146.9 

EPA has articulated its policy 

regarding the use of MOBILE6 in SIP 

development in its ‘‘Policy Guidance on 

the Use of MOBILE6 for SIP 

Development and Transportation 

Conformity’’.1 EPA’s policy guidance 

required the State to consider whether 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e.,

point, area, and non-road mobile 

sources) were still accurate at the time 

the November 3, 2003 submittal was 

developed. Maryland reviewed the 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-motor vehicle sources, revised 

those which were not current and 

concluded that the remaining 

assumptions continue to be valid for the 

2005 ROP plan.

Maryland’s November 3, 2003 

submittal satisfies the conditions 

outlined in EPA’s MOBILE6 Policy 

guidance, and demonstrates that the 

new levels of motor vehicle emissions 

calculated using MOBILE6 continue to 

support ROP for the projected 

attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

by the attainment date of 2005 for the 

Baltimore area. 

The Revised Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets (MVEBs) 

Table 2 below summarizes the revised 

MVEBs identified in MDE’s November 

3, 2003 submittal to EPA. These MVEBs 

were developed using the latest 

planning assumptions, including 2002 

vehicle registration data, VMT, speeds, 

fleet mix, and SIP control measures. 

Because Maryland’s November 3, 2003 

submittal satisfies the conditions 

outlined in EPA’s MOBILE6 Policy 

guidance, and demonstrates that the 

new levels of motor vehicle emissions 

calculated using MOBILE6 continue to 

support ROP for the projected 

attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS for 

ozone by the Baltimore area’s November 

15, 2005 attainment date, EPA is 

proposing to approve these budgets.

TABLE 2.—MARYLAND MOTOR

VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS

Nonattainment area 

2005 ROP 

VOC

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

Baltimore ........................... 55.05 144.5 

III. EPA Evaluation of Maryland’s 

Submittal 

A. Rate-of-Progress (ROP) Plan 

(1) Calculation of Needed 

Reductions—The first step in 

demonstrating ROP is to determine the 

target level of allowable emissions for 

the ROP milestone year. The target level 

of emissions represents the maximum 

amount of emissions that can be emitted 

in a nonattainment area in the given 

ROP milestone year, which in this case 

is 2005. The Act allows states to 

substitute NOX emission reductions for 

VOC emission reductions in post-1996 

ROP plans. The required ROP is 

demonstrated when the sum of all 

creditable VOC and NOX emission 

reductions equal at least 3 percent per 

year grouped in three year periods (i.e.,

2002–2005), or for a total of 9 percent. 

If a state wishes to substitute NOX for 

VOC emission reductions, then a target 

level of emissions demonstrating a 

representative combined 9 percent 

emission reduction in VOC and NOX

emissions must be developed for that 

milestone year. EPA approved the 

attainment demonstration for the 

Baltimore area on October 30, 2001 (66 

FR 54687). The attainment 

demonstration modeling for the 

Baltimore area establishes that NOX

reductions are necessary to bring the 

area into attainment. Because NOX

reductions are necessary to attain the 1-

hour NAAQS for ozone in the Baltimore 

area, MDE may and does use NOX

reductions to demonstrate ROP in the 

Baltimore area. MDE developed NOX

target levels to account for the NOX

substitution. The process for calculating 

the revised 2005 target levels to account 

for all required ROP reductions and 

noncreditable reductions (for each 

milestone year these exclude from the 

baseline those emissions that would be 

eliminated by the Federal Motor Vehicle 

Control Program, FMVCP, and Reid 

Vapor Pressure, RVP, regulations 

promulgated prior to enactment) 2 in 

baseline emissions is as follows:

(a) Develop the base year emissions 

inventories for NOX and VOCs.

(b) Develop the 1990 ROP base year 

inventory (by subtracting biogenic 

emissions and sources located outside 

the nonattainment area from the base 

year inventory). 

(c) Calculate the 1990 adjusted base 

year inventories for each milestone year 

(which in the case of Baltimore are 

1996, 1999, 2002 and 2005) by reducing 

the 1990 ROP inventory by the total 

noncreditable FMVCP/RVP reductions 

to occur by that year. 

(d) Calculate the required ROP 

reduction required for each milestone 

year: For VOC this entails multiplying 

the 1990 adjusted VOC base year 

inventory for 1996 by 15 percent and 

multiplying the 1990 adjusted VOC base 

year inventory for 1999 and later 

milestone years by the percentage of 

required ROP reductions to be achieved

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 75193

3The aggregate noncreditable FMVCP/RVP 

reductions increase over time, and conversely, the 

1990 adjusted base year inventory decreases over 

time. Thus the aggregate noncreditable FMVCP/RVP 

reductions through 2005 are larger than those for 

2002, and the 1990 adjusted base year inventory for 

2005 is less than that for 2002. The sum of the 

aggregate noncreditable FMVCP/RVP reductions up 

to and including those achieved in a milestone year 

and of the 1990 adjusted base year inventory for 

that year is always equal to the ROP base year 

inventory.

through VOC control measures; for NOX, 

this entails multiplying the 1990 

adjusted NOX base year inventory for 

1999 and later milestone years by the 

percentage of required ROP reductions 

to be achieved through NOX

substitution. 

(e) Calculate the fleet turnover 

correction term for each milestone year: 

The fleet turnover correction is the 

difference between the FMVCP/RVP 

emission reductions calculated in step 

(c) for one milestone year and that for 

the previous milestone year; it is also 

the difference between the 1990 

adjusted base year inventory for one 

milestone year and that of the following 

milestone year 3.

(f) Calculate the revised target level of 

emissions for the 2005 milestone year, 

by subtracting the sum of all the fleet 

turnover corrections, the sum of all the 

required ROP reductions for all 

milestone years from the 1990 ROP base 

year inventory. 

Tables 3 and 4 below summarize the 

target level calculations for both NOX

and VOC emissions for the 2005 ROP 

milestone year. Using a combination of 

VOC and NOX emission reductions, 

MDE’s target level calculations show 

that the 2005 target level for VOC 

incorporates the 15 percent ROP 

reduction in baseline emissions by 

1996, and show that the VOC and NOX

2005 target levels incorporate at least a 

9 percent total ROP reduction in 

baseline emissions for all milestone 

years, namely 1999, 2002 and 2005, 

after 1996. The MDE has correctly 

calculated the 2005 target levels for the 

Baltimore area.

TABLE 3.—BALTIMORE AREA 2005 VOC TARGET LEVEL

Row Description VOC

(tpd) 

0 ....................................... 1990 Base Year Inventory ........................................................................................................................ 554.29 

(Minus biogenic emissions) ...................................................................................................................... (-180.09) 

1 ....................................... 1990 Rate-of-Progress Base-Year Inventory ........................................................................................... 374.20 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 1996 .............................................................................................................. 296.30 

2 ....................................... Reduction Required for 15% VOC Rate-of-Progress ............................................................................... 44.445 

3 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction 1990 to 1996 .................................................................................................. 77.9 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 1999 .............................................................................................................. 286.59 

4 ....................................... Reduction Required for 1999 Rate-of-Progress to 1999: 0.15% VOC and 8.85% NOX ......................... 0.43 

5 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction 96 to 99 .......................................................................................................... 9.7 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 2002 .............................................................................................................. 279.4 

6 ....................................... Reduction Required for 2002 Rate-of-Progress: 2.5% VOC and 6.5% NOX .......................................... 6.99 

7 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction 1999 to 2002 .................................................................................................. 7.19 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 2005 .............................................................................................................. 274.43 

8 ....................................... Reduction Required for 2005 Rate-of-Progress: 0.38% VOC and 8.62% NOX ...................................... 1.05 

9 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction ......................................................................................................................... 4.97 

10 ..................................... 2005 Target Level is row one minus the sum of rows two through nine ................................................. 221.53 

TABLE 4.—BALTIMORE AREA NOX TARGET LEVEL

Row Description NOX

(tpd) 

1 ....................................... 1990 Rate-of-Progress Base-Year Inventory ........................................................................................... 536.60 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 1999 .............................................................................................................. 487.30 

2 ....................................... Reduction Required for Rate-of-Progress to 1999: 0.15% VOC and 8.85% NOX .................................. 43.13 

3 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction 90 to 99 .......................................................................................................... 49.3 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 2002 .............................................................................................................. 472.40 

4 ....................................... Reduction Required for Rate-of-Progress: 2.5% VOC and 6.5% NOX .................................................... 30.71 

5 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction 1999 to 2002 .................................................................................................. 14.90 

1990 Inventory Adjusted to 2005 .............................................................................................................. 458.86 

6 ....................................... Reduction Required for Rate-of-Progress: 0.38% VOC and 8.62% NOX ................................................ 39.54 

7 ....................................... Fleet Turnover Correction ......................................................................................................................... 13.54 

8 ....................................... 2005 Target Level = row one minus the sum of rows two through seven .............................................. 345.49 

The methodologies used by MDE to 

project emissions growth and EPA’s 

evaluation are discussed in the 

technical support document (TSD) 

prepared in support of this proposed 

rulemaking action. Maryland used 

appropriate methodologies to project 

emissions growth in all source 

categories. The projection year 

inventories for NOX and VOCs for the 

2005 attainment year are shown in 

Tables 5 and 6 below. EPA has 

determined that these growth estimates 

are approvable.

TABLE 5.—BALTIMORE PROJECTED

(UNCONTROLLED) VOC EMISSIONS

Source Category 

1990 

VOC 

baseline 

(tpd) 

2005 

VOC 

projected 

(tpd) 

Point .................................. 42.0 54.2 

Mobile ............................... 165.1 91.8 

Nonroad ............................ 44.7 55.76 

75194 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 5.—BALTIMORE PROJECTED

(UNCONTROLLED) VOC EMISSIONS—Continued

Source Category 

1990 

VOC 

baseline 

(tpd) 

2005 

VOC 

projected 

(tpd) 

Area .................................. 122.4 132.2 

Total .............................. 374.2 321.67 

TABLE 6.—BALTIMORE PROJECTED

(UNCONTROLLED) NOX EMISSIONS

Source category 

1990 

NOX

baseline 

(tpd) 

2005 

NOX

projected 

(tpd) 

Point .................................. 223.2 251.9 

Mobile ............................... 228.2 199.8 

Nonroad ............................ 71.5 91.84 

Area .................................. 13.7 15.4 

Total .............................. 536.6 558.94 

(2) Evaluation of Emission Control 

Measures—The purpose of the ROP plan 

is to demonstrate how the state has 

reduced emissions 3 percent per year, 

grouped in three year intervals, through 

the area’s attainment year. In general, 

reductions toward ROP requirements 

are creditable provided the control 

measures occurred after 1990 and are 

real, permanent, quantifiable, federally 

enforceable and they occurred by the 

applicable ROP milestone year. An 

evaluation of each of the control 

measures implemented by Maryland in 

the Baltimore nonattainment area can be 

found in the TSD prepared for this 

rulemaking. Table 7 below provides a 

summary of the control measures used 

by Maryland to achieve ROP in the 

Baltimore nonattainment area. All 

control measures in the ROP 

demonstration have been adopted and 

implemented by the State of Maryland 

or are Federal measures being 

implemented nationally. All but one of 

the state control measures have been 

fully approved by EPA into the 

Maryland SIP and are permanent and 

enforceable. Final approval of the 

November 3, 2003 revisions are 

contingent upon EPA’s approval of 

Maryland’s new consumer product rule 

(COMAR 26.11.32) which was 

submitted to EPA on November 19, 2003 

and was proposed by EPA for direct 

final approval on December 9, 2003 (68 

FR 68523). The mobile source control 

programs include the total amount of 

reductions associated with enhanced 

vehicle inspection and maintenance, 

Tier 1 and Tier 2 motor vehicle 

emission standards, reformulated 

gasoline, the National Low Emissions 

Vehicle program, and highway heavy 

duty diesel engine standards. EPA’s 

MOBILE6 emissions model was used to 

generate the mobile source emission 

reductions.

TABLE 7.—SUMMARY OF ROP EMISSION CONTROL MEASURES FOR BALTIMORE

Control measure 

2005 

VOC 

reduction 

(tpd) 

2005 NOX

reduction 

(tpd) 

Mobile Source Control 

Programs ................. *36.75 *55.3 

Stage II Refueling ....... *12.65 0.00 

Landfills ....................... 0.27 0.00 

Open Burning ............. *3.52 *0.74 

Surface Cleaning/

Degreasing .............. 5.76 0.00 

Architectural Coatings 5.55 0.00 

Consumer Products .... 2.83 0.00 

Autobody Refinishing .. 8.07 0.00 

Nonroad Small Gas 

Engines ................... 17.51 *(0.45) 

Nonroad Diesel Engines Tier I & II ....... 0.0 *21.62 

Marine Engine Standards ......................... 1.79 ***(0.07) 

Railroads ..................... 0.00 4.20 

VOC RACT—Expandable Polystyrene ..... 0.10 0.00 

VOC RACT—Yeast 

Production ............... 0.87 0.00 

VOC RACT—Commercial Bakeries ............ 0.72 0.00 

VOC RACT—Screen 

Printing .................... 0.20 0.00 

Federal Air Toxics ...... 0.50 0.00 

Lithographic Printers ... 2.66 0.00 

Flexographic and Rotogravure Printers ... 0.90 0.00 

Enhanced Rule Compliance ..................... 5.10 0.00 

State Air Toxics .......... 0.96 0.00 

NOX RACT ................. 0.00 5.01 

OTC NOX Phase II/III 0.00 *127.6 

Nonroad RFG** .......... 1.39 0.00 

OTC—Consumer 

Products** ............... 3.57 0.00 

Large Spark Ignition 

Engines** ................ 0.75 0.54 

Total ..................... 112.43 214.48 

* Estimated reductions revised from those in 

current, approved SIP in order to reflect updated growth and/or control strategy assumptions. 

** New control measure with credit being applied to attaining ROP for 2005. 

*** ( ) sign indicates increase in projected 

emissions. 

(3) Summary of ROP Evaluation—

Maryland’s ROP demonstration for the 

Baltimore nonattainment area is 

summarized in tons per day in Table 8 

below. The table shows that the 

projected control strategy inventories 

are less than or equal to the target level 

established for 2005. Therefore, the ROP 

plan demonstrates that emissions have 

been sufficiently reduced for the 2005 

milestone year.

TABLE 8.—BALTIMORE NONATTAINMENT AREA ROP DEMONSTRATION

2005 

VOC

(tpd) 

2005 NOX

(tpd) 

Projected Uncontrolled 

Emissions (includes 

growth) (refer to tables 3 and 4) ........... 333.96 558.94 

Reductions From 

Creditable Emission 

Control Measures 

(refer to table 5) ...... 112.43 214.48 

Emissions Level Obtained (uncontrolled 

emissions minus 

emission reductions) 221.53 344.47 

Projected Target Levels (refer to tables 1 

and 2) ...................... 221.53 345.47 

Surplus Emission Reductions (target levels minus emissions 

obtained) ................. 0.00 1.02 

B. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

Under EPA’s transportation 

conformity rule, an ROP plan, like an 

attainment plan, is referred to as a 

control strategy SIP (40 CFR 93.124). A 

control strategy SIP identifies and 

establishes the MVEBs to which an 

area’s transportation improvement 

program and long range transportation 

plan must conform. Conformity to a 

control strategy 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 standard. Maryland 

is required to identify motor MVEBs for 

both NOX and VOCs in the Baltimore 

area’s post 96 ROP plans. The MVEBs 

for the Baltimore area for the milestone 

year 2005 are shown in Table 9 below.

TABLE 9.—ROP MOTOR VEHICLE

EMISSION BUDGETS FOR THE BALTIMORE AREA

Attainment year VOC

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

2005 .................................. 55.05 144.5 

EPA approved new 2005 MOBILE6 

based MVEBs for the Baltimore 

attainment demonstration on October 

27, 2003 (68 FR 61106). Those MVEBs 

became effective on November 26, 2003. 

The approved 2005 attainment plan 

MVEBs budgets are 55.3 tons per day of 

VOC and 146.9 tons per day of NOX.

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 75195

Maryland’s 2005 proposed ROP MVEBs, 

as shown above in Table 7 are less than 

those MVEBS in the approved 

attainment demonstration. These more 

restrictive MVEBs, contained in the 

proposed ROP plan will become the 

applicable MVEBs to be used in 

transportation conformity 

demonstrations for the year 2005 for the 

Baltimore area once the ROP plan is 

approved. 

C. Contingency Measures 

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

moderate and above ozone 

nonattainment areas to adopt 

contingency measures that would have 

to be implemented should the area fail 

to achieve ROP or to attain by its 

attainment date. In addition, section 

182(c)(9) of the Act requires serious and 

above areas to adopt contingency 

measures which would be implemented 

if the area fails to meet any applicable 

milestone. 

In the revised Baltimore area ROP 

plan, Maryland has reallocated some of 

the contingency measures established in 

prior SIP revisions to the control 

measures portion of the 2005 ROP plan. 

EPA guidance allows states an 

additional year to adopt new 

contingency measures to replace those 

which are used. In its November 3, 2003 

SIP revision submittal, MDE is making 

an enforceable commitment to replace 

those contingency measures reallocated 

to the control measures portion of the 

plan and to submit an updated 

contingency plan reflecting these 

additional contingency measures by 

October 31, 2004.

EPA’s review of Maryland’s SIP 

revisions indicates that the post-1996 

ROP requirements of the Act have been 

met for the Baltimore ozone 

nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to 

approve the revisions to the ROP plan 

for Baltimore area for milestone year 

2005 that was submitted by MDE on 

November 3, 2003. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on its proposal to 

approve these revisions to the 2005 ROP 

plan and the contingency measures as 

discussed in this document. Comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA Regional office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

IV. Proposed EPA Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Maryland on November 3, 2003. These 

revisions amend the Baltimore area’s 

ROP plan for the 2005 milestone year to 

update the plan’s emission inventories 

and MVEBs to reflect the use of 

MOBILE6 and continue to demonstrate 

that the ROP requirement for 2005 will 

be met. EPA is also proposing to 

approve the revisions submitted on 

November 3, 2003 which amend the 

contingency measures associated with 

the 2005 ROP plan, including an 

enforceable commitment to replace 

those contingency measures reallocated 

to the control measures portion of the 

plan, and to submit an updated 

contingency plan reflecting these 

additional contingency measures by 

October 31, 2004. These revisions are 

being proposed under a procedure 

called parallel processing, whereby EPA 

proposes rulemaking action concurrent 

with the state’s procedures for 

amending its SIP. If the proposed 

revisions are substantially changed in 

areas other than those identified in this 

document, EPA will evaluate those 

changes and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no 

substantial changes are made other than 

those areas cited in this notice, EPA will 

publish a final rulemaking notice on the 

revisions. The final rulemaking action 

by EPA on these SIP revisions will 

occur only after Maryland has 

completed the state’s procedures for 

amending the SIP and formally 

submitted the revisions to EPA for final 

approval. In addition, final approval of 

the November 3, 2003 revisions is 

contingent upon our approval of 

Maryland’s new consumer product rule 

(COMAR 26.11.32) which was 

submitted to EPA on November 19, 2003 

and was proposed by EPA for direct 

final approval on December 9, 2003 (68 

FR 68523). EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

Interested parties may participate in the 

Federal rulemaking procedure by 

submitting either electronic or written 

comments. To ensure proper receipt by 

EPA, identify the appropriate 

rulemaking identification number 

MD146–3106 in the subject line on the 

first page of your comment. Please 

ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

1. Electronically. If you submit an 

electronic comment as prescribed 

below, EPA recommends that you 

include your name, mailing address, 

and an e-mail address or other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment. Also include this contact 

information on the outside of any disk 

or CD–ROM you submit, and in any 

cover letter accompanying the disk or 

CD–ROM. This ensures that you can be 

identified as the submitter of the 

comment and allows EPA to contact you 

in case EPA cannot read your comment 

due to technical difficulties or needs 

further information on the substance of 

your comment. EPA’s policy is that EPA 

will not edit your comment, and any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket. 

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. 

i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

Kotsch.Martin@EPA.gov, attention 

MD146–3106. EPA’s e-mail system is 

not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system. If 

you send an e-mail comment directly 

without going through Regulations.gov , 

EPA’s e-mail system automatically 

captures your e-mail address. E-mail 

addresses that are automatically 

captured by EPA’s e-mail system are 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the official public docket. 

ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of 

Regulation.gov is an alternative method 

of submitting electronic comments to 

EPA. Go directly to Regulations.gov at 

http://www.regulations.gov, then select 

‘‘Environmental Protection Agency’’ at 

the top of the page and use the ‘‘go’’

button. The list of current EPA actions 

available for comment will be listed. 

Please follow the online instructions for 

submitting comments. The system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. 

iii. Disk or CD–ROM. You may submit 

comments on a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the mailing address 

identified in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. These electronic 

submissions will be accepted in 

WordPerfect, Word or ASCII file format. 

Avoid the use of special characters and 

any form of encryption. 

2. By Mail. Written comments should 

be addressed to the EPA Regional office 

listed in the ADDRESSES section of this 

document. 

For public commenters, it is 

important to note that EPA’s policy is 

that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public

75196 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 249 / Tuesday, December 30, 2003 / Proposed Rules 

viewing at the EPA Regional Office, as 

EPA receives them and without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, confidential 

business information (CBI), or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. When EPA 

identifies a comment containing 

copyrighted material, EPA will provide 

a reference to that material in the 

version of the comment that is placed in 

the official public rulemaking file. The 

entire printed comment, including the 

copyrighted material, will be available 

at the Regional Office for public 

inspection. 

Submittal of CBI Comments—Do not 

submit information that you consider to 

be CBI electronically to EPA. You may 

claim information that you submit to 

EPA as CBI by marking any part or all 

of that information as CBI (if you submit 

CBI on disk or CD–ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD–ROM the specific 

information that is CBI). Information so 

marked will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2.

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the official 

public regional rulemaking file. If you 

submit the copy that does not contain 

CBI on disk or CD–ROM, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD–ROM clearly 

that it does not contain CBI. Information 

not marked as CBI will be included in 

the public file and available for public 

inspection without prior notice. If you 

have any questions about CBI or the 

procedures for claiming CBI, please 

consult the person identified in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Considerations When Preparing 

Comments to EPA 

You may find the following 

suggestions helpful for preparing your 

comments: 

1. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

2. Describe any assumptions that you 

used. 

3. Provide any technical information 

and/or data you used that support your 

views. 

4. If you estimate potential burden or 

costs, explain how you arrived at your 

estimate. 

5. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns. 

6. Offer alternatives. 

7. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, 

identify the appropriate regional file/

rulemaking identification number in the 

subject line on the first page of your 

response. It would also be helpful if you 

provided the name, date, and Federal 

Register citation related to your 

comments. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 

This proposed rule also is not subject 

to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

This rule proposing to approve 

revisions which amend the Baltimore 

area’s ROP plan for the 2005 milestone 

year to update the plan’s emission 

inventories and motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) to reflect the use of 

MOBILE6 and which amend the 

contingency measures associated with 

the 2005 ROP plan does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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 19, 2003. 

Thomas Voltaggio, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 03–32028 Filed 12–29–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 202, 204, 211, 212, 243, 

and 252 

[DFARS Case 2003–D081] 

Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement; Unique Item 

Identification and Valuation

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments.