38334 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by August 

15, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) The Boeing Company Model MD–11 

and MD–11F airplanes, certificated in any 

category, as identified in Boeing Special 

Attention Service Bulletin MD11–55–027, 

dated March 17, 2011. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 5510: Tail Fuel Tank Access 

Door. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by a report that 

the rub strips of the tail fuel tank access door 

were manufactured improperly. We are 

issuing this AD to prevent inadequate 

electrical bonding between the rub strips and 

the fuel access door, which can contribute to 

possible ignition of flammable fuel vapor in 

the tail fuel tank as a result of a lightning 

strike. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Installation 

(g) Within 60 months after the effective 

date of this AD, replace the rub strips of the 

tail fuel tank access door with new rub strips, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Special Attention 

Service Bulletin MD11–55–027, dated March 

17, 2011. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority 

to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

Related Information 

(i) For more information about this AD, 

contact Philip Kush, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion Branch, ANM–140L, FAA, Los 

Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, 

Lakewood, California 90712–4137; phone: 

562–627–5263; fax: 562–627–5210; e-mail: 

philip.kush@faa.gov. 

(j) For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800–0019, Long 

Beach, California 90846–0001; telephone 

206–544–5000, extension 2; fax 206–766– 

5683; e-mail dse.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, 

Washington 98057. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 22, 

2011. 

Kalene C. Yanamura, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16479 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0475; FRL–9426–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia; 

2002 Base Year Emission Inventory, 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

Contingency Measures, Reasonably 

Available Control Measures, and 

Transportation Conformity Budgets for 

the Washington, DC Area 1997 8-Hour 

Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the District of 

Columbia, the State of Maryland, and 

the Commonwealth of Virginia (the 

States). These revisions pertain to 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 Washington, DC area 

moderate 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (Washington Area). 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated 

with this revision. EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP revisions because they 

satisfy the emission inventory, RFP, 

RACM, RFP contingency measures, and 

transportation conformity requirements 

for areas classified as moderate 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS) and demonstrate 

further progress in reducing ozone 

precursors. This action is being taken 

under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–0475 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: 

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–0475, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

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–2010– 

0475. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 38335 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 51 N Street, NE., Fifth 

Floor, Washington, DC 20002; the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230; and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality, 

629 East Main Street, Richmond, 

Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria A. Pino, (215) 814–2181, or by 

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

following is provided to aid in locating 

information in this document. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background of this action? 

II. What is EPA’s evaluation of the revision? 

III. General Information Pertaining to SIP 

Submittals From the Commonwealth of 

Virginia 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background of this 

action? 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

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

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time, than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

children and adults who are active 

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

asthma. 

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

finalized its attainment/nonattainment 

designations for areas across the country 

with respect to the 8-hour ozone 

standard. These actions became 

effective on June 15, 2004. Among those 

nonattainment areas is the Washington 

Area. The Washington Area includes the 

District of Columbia (the District); 

Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince 

William Counties and the cities of 

Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, 

Manassas, and Manassas Park in 

Virginia (the Northern Virginia area) 

and Calvert, Charles, Frederick, 

Montgomery, and Prince George’s 

Counties in Maryland. Pursuant to 

Phase 1 of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (Phase 1 rule), 

published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23951), an area was classified under 

Subpart 2 of the CAA based on its 

8-hour design value if that area had a 

1-hour design value at or above 0.121 

ppm (the lowest 1-hour design value in 

Table 1 of Subpart 2). Based on this 

criterion, the Washington Area was 

classified under Subpart 2 as a moderate 

nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.309, 

81.321, and 81.347. 

These designations triggered the 

CAA’s section 110(a)(1) requirement 

that states must submit attainment 

demonstrations for their nonattainment 

areas to EPA by no later than three years 

after the promulgation of a NAAQS. 

Accordingly, EPA’s Phase 1 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. 

On November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), 

as revised on June 8, 2007 (72 FR 

31727), EPA published the Phase 2 final 

rule for implementation of the 1997 8- 

hour standard (Phase 2 rule). The Phase 

2 rule addressed the RFP control and 

planning obligations as they apply to 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

Among other things, the Phase 1 and 

2 rules outline the SIP requirements and 

deadlines for various requirements in 

areas designated as moderate 

nonattainment. The rules further require 

that modeling and attainment 

demonstrations, reasonable further 

progress plans, reasonably available 

control measures, projection year 

emission inventories, motor vehicle 

emissions budgets, and contingency 

measures were all due by June 15, 2007 

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

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

EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone 

implementation rule (40 CFR 51.910) 

require each 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area designated moderate 

and above to submit an emissions 

inventory and RFP Plan for review and 

approval into its SIP. 

II. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

revision? 

The District of Columbia Department 

of the Environment (DDOE), the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE), and the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) worked together to develop a 

joint plan for the Washington Area to 

address the attainment demonstration, 

2002 base year emissions inventory, the 

RFP plan, RFP contingency measure, 

and RACM requirements. This plan, 

entitled ‘‘Plan to Improve Air Quality in 

the Washington, DC–MD–VA Region, 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

8-Hour Ozone Standard, Moderate Area 

SIP,’’ will be referred to as ‘‘the 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan’’ 

throughout this document. The 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan was 

submitted to the EPA as a SIP revision 

by DDOE on June 12, 2007, by MDE on 

June 4, 2007, and by VADEQ on June 12, 

2007. These SIP revisions also establish 

a MVEB for 2008 for the Washington 

Area. These SIP revisions were subject 

to notice and comment by the public 

and the States addressed the comments 

received on the proposed SIPs. All 

sections of these SIP submittals, with 

the exception of the attainment 

demonstration, will be discussed in this 

rulemaking. The attainment 

demonstration sections of the SIP 

submittals will be discussed in a 

separate rulemaking. 

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory 

An emissions inventory, required by 

section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, is a 

comprehensive, accurate, current 

inventory of actual emissions from all 

sources. For ozone nonattainment areas, 

the emissions inventory needs to 

contain volatile organic compound 

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (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. A 

summary of the Washington Area 2002 

base year VOC and NOX emissions 

inventories is included in Table 1, 

below. 

TABLE 1—WASHINGTON AREA 2002 

BASE-YEAR VOC EMISSIONS IN

TONS PER DAY (TPD) 

Emission source 

category VOC NOX

Point .......................... 12.91 220.6 

Stationary Area ......... 192.64 24.25 

Non-Road Mobile ...... 125.79 85.72 

On-Road Mobile ....... 116.94 266.65 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38336 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—WASHINGTON AREA 2002 

BASE-YEAR VOC EMISSIONS IN

TONS PER DAY (TPD)—Continued 

Emission source 

category VOC NOX

Total (excluding 

Biogenics) ...... 448.28 597.22 

Biogenics .................. 314.74 3.07 

EPA reviewed the 2002 base year 

inventory for the Washington Area and 

determined that the procedures, 

methodologies, and results used to 

develop the Washington Area 2002 base 

year inventory are approvable. 

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 

RFP Target Levels 

The process for determining the 

emissions baseline from which the RFP 

reductions are calculated is described in 

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

51.910. This baseline value has been 

determined to be the 2002 adjusted base 

year inventory. Sections 182(b)(1)(B) 

and (D) require the exclusion from the 

base year inventory of emissions 

benefits resulting from the Federal 

Motor Vehicle Control Program 

(FMVCP) regulations promulgated by 

January 1, 1990 and the Reid Vapor 

Pressure (RVP) regulations promulgated 

June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23666). The 

FMVCP and RVP emissions reductions 

are determined by the state using EPA’s 

on-road mobile source emissions 

modeling software, MOBILE6. The 

FMVCP and RVP emission reductions 

are then removed from the base year 

inventory by the state, resulting in an 

adjusted base year inventory. The 

emission reductions needed to satisfy 

the RFP requirement are then calculated 

from the adjusted base year inventory. 

These reductions are then subtracted 

from the adjusted base year inventory to 

establish the emissions target for the 

RFP milestone year (2008). 

For moderate areas like the 

Washington Area, the CAA specifies a 

15 percent reduction in ozone precursor 

emissions over an initial 6-year period. 

In the Phase 2 Rule (70 FR 71612), EPA 

interpreted this requirement for areas 

that were also designated nonattainment 

and classified as moderate or higher for 

the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Phase 

2 Rule, EPA provided that an area 

classified as moderate or higher that has 

the same boundaries as an area, or is 

entirely composed of several areas or 

portions of areas, for which EPA fully 

approved a 15 percent plan for the 1- 

hour NAAQS, is considered to have met 

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

the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS. In this 

situation, a moderate nonattainment 

area is subject to RFP under section 

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

no later than 3 years after designation 

for the 8-hour NAAQS, a SIP revision 

that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 

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

provide for a 15 percent emission 

reduction (either NOX and/or VOC) 

accounting for any growth that occurs 

during the 6-year period following the 

baseline emissions inventory year, that 

is, 2002–2008. 

The Washington nonattainment area 

under the 1-hour ozone standard was 

classified as severe. For the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS, EPA fully approved the 

15 percent ROP plans for the 

Washington, DC 1-hour severe ozone 

nonattainment area on August 5, 1999 

(64 FR 42600), July 44686), and October 

6, 2000 (65 FR 59727). Therefore, 

according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP 

plan for the Washington Area may use 

either NOX or VOC emissions 

reductions (or both) to achieve the 

15 percent emission reduction 

requirement. 

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

the CAA, emission reductions that 

resulted from the FMVCP and RVP rules 

promulgated prior to 1990 are not 

creditable for achieving RFP emission 

reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base 

year inventory must be 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. 

The States set out the calculations for 

the adjusted base year inventory and 

2008 RFP target levels. The Washington 

Area 2002 anthropogenic base year 

inventory is shown in Table 2, below. 

TABLE 2—WASHINGTON AREA 2002 

ANTHROPOGENIC BASE YEAR INVENTORY

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category VOC NOX

Point ........................ 12.91 220 .6 

Area ........................ 192.64 24 .25 

Nonroad .................. 125.79 85 .72 

On-Road ................. 116.94 266 .65 

Total ................. 448.28 597 .22 

The States calculated the non-creditable 

emission reductions between 2002 and 

2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 

motor vehicle emissions with all post1990 CAA measures turned off, and 

calculating the difference, as shown 

below in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—WASHINGTON AREA NONCREDITABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Source category VOC NOX

(i) 2002 On-Road ...... 166.55 308.24 

(ii) 2008 On-Road ..... 154.10 276.63 

Non-creditable Reductions (i)–(ii) ...... 12.45 31.61 

The State’s calculations of the 

Washington Area 2002 VOC inventory 

adjusted to 2008 and the VOC target 

level for 2008 are summarized in Table 

4, below. 

TABLE 4—WASHINGTON AREA 2008 RFP TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

[Ozone season tpd] 

Description Formula VOC 

A—2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year Inventory ..................................................................................................................... .............. 448.28 

B—FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 And 2008 ........................................................................................................... .............. 12.45 

C—2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 ...................................................................................................... A–B ...... 435.83 

D—RFP Ratio ............................................................................................................................................................................ .............. 15% 

E—Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 .................................................................................................... C * D .... 65.37 

F—Target Level for 2008 .......................................................................................................................................................... C ¥ E .. 370.45 

The States elected to meet RFP in the 

Washington Area using only VOC 

reductions. A moderate 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area with an approved 15 

percent ROP plan under the 1-hour 

standard can use reductions from VOC 

or NOX or a combination of either. 

C. Projected Inventories and 

Determination of RFP 

The States described the methods 

used for developing its 2008 projected 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 38337 

VOC and NOX inventories and 

developed projected uncontrolled and 

controlled 2008 VOC and NOX

emissions. EPA reviewed the 

procedures used to develop the 

projected inventories and found them to 

be reasonable. 

Projected controlled 2008 emissions 

for the Washington Area are 

summarized in Table 5, below. 

TABLE 5—WASHINGTON AREA 2008 

PROJECTED CONTROLLED VOC & 

NOX EMISSIONS (TPD) 

Emission source 

category 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpd) 

NOX

emissions 

(tpd) 

Point .......................... 13.98 229.36 

Area .......................... 181.59 26.93 

Nonroad .................... 92.48 76.91 

Mobile ....................... 70.98 160.30 

Total ................... 358.84 493.22 

To determine if 2008 RFP is met in 

the Washington Area, the total projected 

controlled emissions must be compared 

to the target levels calculated in Section 

B of this notice. As shown below in 

Table 6, the total VOC emission 

projections meet the 2008 RFP emission 

target. Therefore, the 2008 RFP in the 

Washington Area is demonstrated. 

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

WASHINGTON AREA

Description 

VOC 

emissions 

(tpd) 

A—Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions ....................... 358.84 

B—Target Level for 2008 ............. 370.45 

RFP met if A < B .......................... Yes 

D. Control Measures and Emission 

Reductions for RFP 

To meet the RFP requirement for the 

Washington Area, the States used a 

combination of area source control, 

nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile 

measures. 

The area source measures the States 

used to meet 2008 RFP in the 

Washington Area include the mobile 

repair and refinishing rule, phase I of 

the portable fuel containers rule, the 

architectural and industrial 

maintenance (AIM) coatings rule, phase 

I of the reformulated consumer products 

rule, and the solvent cleaning 

operations rule. Area source 2008 

emission reductions are 30.98 tpd VOC 

and 0 tpd NOX. 

Nonroad measures include phase I 

and II emissions standards for gasolinepowered nonroad utility engines, the 

Federal non-road diesel engines rule, 

Federal emissions standards for spark 

ignition marine engines, Federal 

emissions standards for large spark 

ignition engines, and Federal 

reformulated gasoline use in nonroad 

motor vehicles and equipment. Using 

EPA’s NONROAD model, the States 

calculated emission reductions from 

these measures to be 36.91 tpd VOC and 

11.68 tpd NOX. EPA reviewed the 

procedures that the State’s used to 

develop its projected inventories, 

including the use of the NONROAD 

model, and found them to be 

reasonable. 

On-road mobile measures include 

high-tech vehicle inspection and 

maintenance (enhanced I/M), Federal 

tier I vehicle emission standards and 

new Federal evaporative test 

procedures, the national low emission 

vehicle (NLEV) program, tier 2 vehicle 

standards, and the heavy duty diesel 

engine (HDDE) rule. On-road 2008 

emission reductions that the States 

calculated using EPA’s MOBILE model 

are 6.19 tpd VOC and 29.67 tpd NOX. 

EPA reviewed the procedures that the 

States used to develop the projected 

inventories, including the use of the 

MOBILE model, and found them to be 

reasonable. 

Additional measures include national 

standards for locomotives, 

transportation control measures (TCMs) 

and vehicle technology, fuel, or 

maintenance measures, and a voluntary 

bundle. Table 7 summarizes the VOC 

emission reductions that the States 

claimed in the Washington Area 8-hour 

ozone plan to meet RFP in the 

Washington Area. While many of the 

emission control measures used to meet 

RFP also resulted in NOX emission 

reductions, the States elected to meet 

RFP in the Washington Area using only 

VOC reductions. 

TABLE 7—VOC CONTROL MEASURES

AND 2008 EMISSION REDUCTIONS IN

THE WASHINGTON AREA

Control measure VOC 

(tpd) 

Area Sources Measures ............... 30.98 

Nonroad Measures (NONROAD 

Model) ....................................... 36.91 

Onroad Measures (MOBILE 

Model) ....................................... 6.19 

Locomotive Standards .................. 0.05 

Transportation Control Measures 0.19 

Voluntary Bundle .......................... 0.19 

Total ....................................... 74.51 

E. Contingency Measures for Failure To 

Meet RFP 

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

a state with a moderate or above ozone 

nonattainment area to include sufficient 

additional contingency measures in its 

RFP plan in case the area fails to meet 

RFP. The same provision of the CAA 

also requires that the contingency 

measures must be fully adopted control 

measures or rules. Upon failure to meet 

an RFP milestone requirement, the state 

must be able to implement the 

contingency measures without any 

further rulemaking activities. Upon 

implementation of such measures, 

additional emission reductions of at 

least 3 percent of the adjusted 2002 

baseline emissions must be achieved. 

For more information on contingency 

measures, see the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble (57 FR 13512) and the 

November 29, 2005 Phase 2 8-hour 

ozone implementation rule (70 FR 

71612). 

To meet the requirements for 

contingency emission reductions, EPA 

allows states to use NOX emission 

reductions to substitute for VOC 

emission reductions in their 

contingency plans. However, the States 

chose to use only VOC reductions to 

meet the contingency measure 

requirement in the Washington Area. 

The States calculated the contingency 

VOC reduction for the Washington Area 

as shown in Table 8, below. The RFP 

contingency requirement may be met by 

including in the RFP plan a 

demonstration of 18 percent VOC & 

NOX RFP. The additional 3 percent 

reduction above the 15 percent 

requirement must be attributed to 

specific measures. 

TABLE 8—WASHINGTON AREA 2008 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS

Description Formula VOC NOX

A—2002 Rate-Of Progress Base Year Inventory ....................................................................................... ........................ 448.28 597.22 

B—FMVCP/RVP Reductions Between 2002 and 2008 .............................................................................. ........................ 12.45 31.61 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38338 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—WASHINGTON AREA 2008 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE TARGET LEVEL CALCULATIONS—Continued 

Description Formula VOC NOX

C—2002 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2008 ........................................................................ A ¥ B ............ 435.83 565.61 

D—RFP Ratio .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 15% 0 

E—RFP Emissions Reductions Required Between 2002 & 2008 .............................................................. C * D .............. 65.37 0 

F—Contingency Percentage ....................................................................................................................... ........................ 0.3% 2.7% 

G—Contingency Emission Reduction Requirements .................................................................................. C * F .............. 1.31 15.27 

H—Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008 ....................................................................................... C ¥ E ¥ G ... 369.15 550.34 

To determine if the States meet the 

three percent contingency measure 

requirement for the Washington Area, 

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, the States have met 

the contingency measure requirement 

for the Washington Area. 

TABLE 9—EVALUATION OF THE WASHINGTON AREA 2008 RFP CONTINGENCY MEASURE REQUIREMENT

Description VOC 

(tpd) NOX (tpd) 

A—Total 2008 Projected Controlled 

Emissions .............. 358.84 493.22 

B—Contingency 

Measure Target 

Level for 2008 ....... 369.15 550.34 

Contingency measure 

requirement met if 

A < B ..................... Yes Yes 

F. RACM Analysis and Determination 

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

CAA, states are required to implement 

all RACM as expeditiously as 

practicable for each nonattainment area. 

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

following: ‘‘In general—Such plan 

provisions shall provide for the 

implementation of all reasonably 

available control measures as 

expeditiously as practicable (including 

such reductions in emissions from 

existing sources in the area as may be 

obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology) and shall provide 

for attainment of the national primary 

ambient air quality standards.’’ 

Furthermore, in EPA’s Phase 2 Rule, 

EPA describes how states must include 

a RACM analysis with their attainment 

demonstration (70 FR 71659). The 

purpose of the RACM analysis is to 

determine whether or not reasonably 

available control measures exist that 

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 nonroad 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;’’ and 

• The control measure can advance 

the attainment date by at least one year. 

The States evaluated 322 potential 

stationary, area, nonroad, and mobile 

source control measures against the 

RACM criteria. Several measures would 

have provided some emission 

reductions. However, the States 

determined that none of the mandatory 

measures would achieve reductions in 

the 2008 ozone season. Therefore, the 

States concluded that there are no 

RACM appropriate to advance the 

Washington Area’s attainment date. 

EPA has reviewed the States’ analysis. 

To meet the RACM requirement, the 

States must demonstrate that it has 

adopted all RACM necessary to move 

the Washington Area toward attainment 

as expeditiously as practicable and to 

meet all RFP requirements. As 

demonstrated above in section IV of this 

document, the States have met the RFP 

requirements for the Washington Area. 

The States evaluated all source 

categories that could contribute 

meaningful emission reductions, and 

compiled an extensive list of potential 

control measures. Furthermore, the 

States considered the time needed to 

develop and adopt regulations and the 

time it would take to see the benefit 

from these measures. While the States 

found that the measures could not be 

used to advance the Washington Area’s 

attainment date, the State’s determined 

that many of the measures were useful 

and would be considered for future SIPs 

for the Washington Area. Therefore, 

EPA concurs with the States’ conclusion 

that there are no RACM that would have 

advanced the 2010 attainment date for 

the Washington Area. 

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets 

Transportation conformity is required 

by CAA section 176(c). EPA’s 

conformity rule requires that 

transportation plans, programs and 

projects conform to state air quality 

implementation plans and establishes 

the criteria and procedure for 

determining whether or not they do. 

Conformity to a SIP means that 

transportation activities will not 

produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, or delay 

timely attainment of the national 

ambient air quality standards. The 

criteria by which EPA determines 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). The process for 

determining the adequacy of submitted 

SIP budgets is described in 40 CFR 

93.118(f). 

States must establish VOC and NOX

MVEBs for each of the milestone years 

up to the attainment year and submit 

the mobile budgets to EPA for approval. 

Upon adequacy determination or 

approval by EPA, states must conduct 

transportation conformity analysis for 

their Transportation Improvement 

Programs (TIPs) and long range 

transportation plans to ensure highway 

vehicle emissions will not exceed 

relevant MVEBs. Failure to demonstrate 

such transportation conformity lapses 

results in freezing of Federal highway 

funds and all Federal highway projects 

in the lapsed area. 

The States discuss transportation 

conformity in Section 8.0 of the 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan. 

The States describe their methods and 

provide detailed input parameters used 

in modeling the inventories in 

Appendices E1 and E2 of the 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan. In 

the Washington Area, the Metropolitan 

Washington Air Quality Committee 

(MWAQC) consults with the 

Transportation Planning Board (TPB) to 

establish mobile source emissions 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 38339 

budgets. The Washington Area MVEB 

for the 2008 RFP is based on the 

projected 2008 mobile source emissions, 

accounting for all mobile control 

measures. The budgets are equal to the 

projected 2008 on-road mobile source 

emission inventories minus reductions 

from transportation control measures. 

The MVEBs for the 2008 RFP are shown 

in Table 10, below. 

TABLE 10—WASHINGTON AREA 2008 

RFP MVEBS

VOC 

(tpd) 

NOX

(tpd) 

(A) Projected Controlled Mobile 

Emissions .............. 70 .98 160 .30 

(B) Transportation 

Control Measures .. 0 .19 0 .49 

(A)–(B) ...................... 70 .79 159 .81 

MVEB (rounded to 

nearest 0.1 tpd) ..... 70 .8 159 .8 

For budgets to be approvable, they 

must meet, at a minimum, EPA’s 

adequacy criteria (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)). 

In a September 4, 2009 Federal Register 

notice, EPA notified the public that EPA 

found that the 2008 RFP MVEBs in the 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan are 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes (74 FR 45853). As a result of 

EPA’s finding, the States must use the 

MVEBs from the Washington Area 8- 

hour ozone plan for future conformity 

determinations for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. 

In addition to the budgets being 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes, EPA found the procedures the 

States used to develop the MVEBs to be 

reasonable. Because the 2008 RFP 

MVEBs are adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes and the methods 

the States used to develop them are 

correct, the 2008 RFP budgets are 

approvable. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

That are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal counterparts 

* * *.’’ The opinion concludes that 

‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, therefore, 

documents or other information needed 

for civil or criminal enforcement under 

one of these programs could not be 

privileged because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA has reviewed the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory; the 2008 ozone 

projected emission inventory; the 2008 

RFP plan; RFP contingency measures; 

RACM analysis; and 2008 transportation 

conformity budgets contained in the 

Washington Area 8-hour ozone plan, 

and found that those elements fully 

addressed the CAA’s requirements. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of 

those elements, which were submitted 

to EPA as a SIP revision by DDOE on 

June 12, 2007, by MDE on June 4, 2007, 

and by VADEQ on June 12, 2007. EPA 

is soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38340 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rule 

pertaining to the 2002 base year 

emissions inventory, the 2008 ozone 

projected emission inventory, the 2008 

RFP plan; RFP contingency measures, 

RACM analysis, and 2008 transportation 

conformity budgets for the Washington 

Area does not have tribal implications 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 

because the SIP is not approved to apply 

in Indian country located in the state, 

and EPA notes that it will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: June 15, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16376 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0463; FRL–9427–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVUAPCD) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the SJVUAPCD portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) and 

particulate matter (PM) emissions from 

commercial charbroiling. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

August 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0463, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http://

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3019, grounds.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ..................................................... 4692 Commercial Charbroiling ................................ 09/17/09 05/17/10 

On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that 

the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4692 

met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS