[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26188-26196]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10222]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788; FRL-9945-80-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Reasonable Further Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Motor
Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Baltimore 1997 8-Hour Ozone Serious
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the serious nonattainment area reasonable further progress
(RFP) plan for the Baltimore serious nonattainment area for the 1997 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The SIP
revision includes 2011 and 2012 RFP milestones, contingency measures
for failure to meet RFP, and updates to the 2002 base year inventory
and the 2008 reasonable RFP plan previously approved by EPA. EPA is
also proposing to approve the transportation conformity motor vehicle
emissions budgets (MVEBs) associated with this revision. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2015-0788 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Baltimore Area

    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.\1\
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
pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA revoked the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective April 6,
2015. See 80 FR 12264 (March 06, 2015). EPA revised the ozone NAAQS
in both 2008 and 2015. EPA lowered the level of the 8-hour NAAQS to
0.075 ppm and then 0.070 ppm. See 73 FR 16483 (March 27, 2008) and
80 FR 65291 (October 26, 2015). This SIP revision does not address
the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2004, EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment
designations for areas across the country with respect to the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. 69 FR 23858. These actions became effective on
June 15, 2004. Among those

nonattainment areas was the Baltimore, Maryland moderate nonattainment
area (the Baltimore Area). The Baltimore Area includes Baltimore City
and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties,
which are all in Maryland.
    Pursuant to Phase 1 of the 8-hour ozone implementation rule for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 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). See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). Based on this
criterion, the Baltimore Area was classified under Subpart 2 as a
moderate nonattainment area. Moderate areas were required to attain the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS within 6 years of designation, or by June 15,
2010.
    The Baltimore Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by
June 2010. However, the area was eligible for a one-year extension of
its attainment date, from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011. EPA granted
that attainment date extension on March 11, 2011. 76 FR 13289. The
extension was based on the air quality data for the 4th highest daily
8-hour monitored value during the 2009 ozone season.
    The Baltimore Area also did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
by June 2011. The area did not qualify for a second one-year extension
of its attainment date, based on air quality data monitored during the
2009 and 2010 ozone seasons. Therefore, on February 1, 2012, EPA made a
determination that the Baltimore Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS by its attainment date. 77 FR 4901. As a result of this
determination, the Baltimore Area was reclassified by operation of law
as a serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. See 40 CFR 81.321. Consequently, the State of Maryland was
required to submit SIP revisions for the Baltimore Area to meet the CAA
requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas. EPA set the due
date for the serious area SIP revision as no later than September 30,
2012. The serious area attainment date for the Baltimore Area was as
expeditiously as practicable, but not later than June 15, 2013. MDE
submitted its July 22, 2013 SIP revision request, the Baltimore 8-hour
Serious Area Plan, pursuant to this requirement.
    On May 26, 2015, EPA determined that the Baltimore Area attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, based on monitored ambient air quality
data for the 2012-2014 monitoring period. 80 FR 29970. Under the
provisions of EPA's ozone implementation rule (40 CFR 51.918), when EPA
issues a determination that an area is attaining the relevant standard,
that determination suspends the area's obligations to submit an
attainment demonstration, reasonably available control measures (RACM),
RFP plan, contingency measures and other planning requirements under
part D of title I of the CAA related to attainment of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS for as long as the area continues to attain the
standard.\2\ Preliminary (i.e., not yet quality assured or certified)
monitoring data for the 2013-2015 monitoring period indicates that the
Baltimore Area continues to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\3\
Although the requirement to submit these plan elements is suspended,
EPA is not precluded from acting upon these elements at any time if a
state still submits them to EPA for review and approval. Therefore, the
requirement for Maryland to submit certain serious area SIP elements
pursuant to sections 172 and 182 of the CAA has been suspended.
However, Maryland had already submitted its July 22, 2013 serious area
SIP revision, and MDE requested that EPA act on the RFP plan, RFP
contingency measures, MVEBs and emission inventories contained in the
SIP revision submittal. EPA is proposing to approve these elements as
SIP strengthening measures pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
Considering the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data, the
Baltimore Area continues to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, ``[u]pon a determination by EPA
that an area designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has
attained the standard, the requirements for such area to submit
attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably available
control measures, reasonable further progress plans, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 8-
hour ozone NAAQS shall be suspended until such time as: The area is
redesignated to attainment, at which time the requirements no longer
apply; or EPA determines that the area has violated the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.''
    \3\ The Preliminary 2013-2015 Baltimore Monitoring Ozone Data
Report can be found online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket
number EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Serious Area Requirements

    Section 182 of the CAA and EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone regulations (40
CFR 51.910) require each moderate and above 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area to submit an emissions inventory and RFP SIP revision that
describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
from a baseline emissions inventory. An emissions inventory is an
estimation of actual emissions of air pollutants in an area. The
emissions inventory for an ozone nonattainment area contains VOC and
NOX emissions, which are precursors to ozone formation. In
this case, a ``baseline'' emissions inventory is required for the year
2002. See EPA's Phase 2 Final Rule for Implementation of the 8-hour
Ozone Standard (Phase 2 Rule), 70 FR 71612, 71615 (November 29, 2005).
    EPA's Phase 1 Final Rule for Implementation of the 8-hour Ozone
Standard (Phase 1 Rule), published on April 30, 2004, set out criteria
for classifying nonattainment areas under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. 69 FR 23951. The Phase 1 Rule also addressed revocation of
the 1-hour ozone NAAQS; how anti-backsliding principles will ensure
continued progress toward attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS;
attainment dates; and the timing of emissions reductions needed for
attainment. On November 29, 2005, EPA published the Phase 2 Rule. 70 FR
71612. 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. The Phase 2 Rule was revised on June 8, 2007.
72 FR 31727. Among other things, the Phase 1 and 2 Rules outline the
SIP requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas
designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The rules
set a due date of June 15, 2007 for the required base year emission
inventory, RFP plan, modeling and attainment demonstration, RACM,
MVEBs, and contingency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a), (c)).

C. The Moderate Area Plan

    On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensive SIP revision
request to address moderate area ozone requirements for the Baltimore
Area. That 2007 ``Moderate Area Plan'' SIP revision request included
the 2002 base year emissions inventory, a 2008 RFP plan, including a
2008 ozone projected emission inventory, a RACM analysis, an attainment
demonstration (including modeling and weight of evidence), a 2009
attainment year inventory, contingency measures for RFP and attainment,
and 2008 and 2009 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area. On June 4, 2010, EPA
approved the 2002 base year inventory, RFP plan up to 2008, RFP
contingency measures, RACM demonstration, and 2008 MVEBs associated
with the 2007 moderate area SIP revision submittal. 75 FR 31709.

D. The Serious Area Plan

    On July 22, 2013, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
submitted the SIP revision, ``Baltimore Serious Nonattainment Area 0.08
ppm 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan Demonstrating Rate of
Progress for 2008, 2011 and 2012 Revision to 2002 Base Year Emissions;
and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration, SIP Number: 13-07,'' (the
Serious Area Plan). That SIP revision submittal included updates to the
2002 base year emissions inventory and 2008 RFP plan that EPA
previously approved into the Maryland SIP, RFP for 2011 and 2012, an
attainment demonstration, including modeling and weight of evidence,
RFP and attainment contingency measures, a RACM determination, and 2012
MVEBs. After EPA determined Baltimore had attained the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard, Maryland, by letter dated October 20, 2015, withdrew
the attainment demonstration, including modeling and weight of
evidence, contingency measures for attainment, and the RACM analysis
from consideration as a SIP revision. Therefore, those elements are not
addressed in this rulemaking action.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Evaluation

    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking, and a more detailed discussion is contained in the
Technical Support Documents (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action,
which is available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0788.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

1. Requirement
    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources. The emissions inventory
is required by section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. For ozone nonattainment
areas, the emissions inventory needs to contain VOC and NOX
emissions because these pollutants are precursors of ozone. EPA
recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, which is
therefore the starting point for calculating RFP. Maryland submitted
its 2002 base year emissions inventory for the Baltimore Area in its
2007 moderate area plan. EPA approved that inventory on June 4, 2010
(75 FR 31709).
2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
    In its Serious Area Plan for the Baltimore area, Maryland updated
the 2002 base year inventory. The update was needed to reflect the
change to EPA's approved model for onroad mobile sector emissions, from
the Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE) to the Motor Vehicle
Emission Simulator (MOVES) model, as well as updates to EPA's NONROAD
model. The updated 2002 base year inventory is discussed in Section 3
of Maryland's Serious Area Plan.
    A summary of the approved and updated Baltimore Area 2002 base year
VOC and NOX emissions inventories are included in Table 1.
EPA notes that the updates to the onroad and nonroad emissions result
in a lower total base year emissions inventory for VOCs, and a higher
total for NOX.

     Table 1--Comparison of SIP Approved Versus Updated Baltimore Area 2002 Base Year VOC and NOX Emissions
                                        [Ozone season tons per day (tpd)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         VOC                       NOX
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                  Emission source category                        SIP                       SIP
                                                                approved     Updated      approved     Updated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................        13.88        13.88       111.88       111.89
Stationary Area.............................................       116.81       116.81         8.18         8.18
Nonroad Mobile..............................................        70.22        59.61        40.96        49.18
Onroad Mobile...............................................        70.57        72.48       177.06       202.22
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total (excluding Biogenic Emissions)....................       271.48     * 262.77       338.08       371.47
Biogenic Emissions..........................................       223.20       223.20            0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Note: The 2002 updated data is pulled from Table 5-1 in the Serious Area Plan. With that table, MDE states,
  ``Small discrepancies may result due to rounding.''

    EPA reviewed Maryland's updates to its 2002 base year inventory for
the Baltimore Area using the appropriate EPA policy and guidance, and
found MDE's procedures, methodologies, and results for the Baltimore
Area 2002 base year inventory to be reasonable. A detailed evaluation
of the emissions inventories contained in the Serious Area Plan is
contained in a separate November 9, 2015 technical support document,
entitled ``Technical Support Document (TSD) for the Baltimore
Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan:
Demonstrating Rate of Progress for 2008, 2011, and 2012; Revision to
2002 Base Year Emissions; and Serious Area Attainment Demonstration,''
(the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD), which is
available online at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-
OAR-2015-0788. EPA thus proposes to approve the revised 2002 emissions
inventory.

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target Levels, and
Determination of 2008 RFP

1. Requirement
    The Baltimore Area was originally classified as moderate for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As such, the CAA requires a 15 percent (%)
reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial 6-year period.
In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement for areas that
were also designated nonattainment and classified as moderate or higher
for the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided that
an area classified as moderate or higher that has the same boundaries
as an area, or is entirely composed of several areas or portions of
areas, for which EPA fully approved a 15% plan for the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS, is considered to have met the requirements of section 182(b)(1)
of the CAA for the 8-hour NAAQS for the 15% reduction in ozone
precursor emissions. 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) for RFP. The RFP SIP revision must provide for a
15% 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 Baltimore Area was classified as severe under the 1-hour ozone
standard, and had the same boundary as the Baltimore Area under the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. On July 12, 1995, Maryland submitted a 15%
Plan SIP revision for the Baltimore Area. On February 2, 2000, EPA
approved Maryland's 15% plan for the Baltimore severe 1-hour ozone
nonattainment area. 65 FR 5252. Therefore, according to the Phase 2
Rule, the RFP plan for the Baltimore Area may use either NOX
or VOC emissions reductions (or both) to achieve the 15% emission
reduction requirement.
2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
    On June 4, 2010, EPA approved Maryland's moderate area RFP that
provided for a 15% emissions reduction from 2002 to 2008, contained in
the Moderate Area Plan. 75 FR 31709. Maryland, however, needed to
update the 2008 target levels for its Serious Area Plan because they
are the basis for the new 2011 and 2012 target level calculations for
RFP. In the Serious Area Plan, MDE updated its 15% RFP plan to reflect
EPA's change from MOBILE to MOVES for onroad emission modeling and
updates to EPA's NONROAD model.
a. Adjusted Base Year Inventory, 2008 RFP Target Levels
    Maryland set out its calculations for the adjusted base year
inventory and 2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 of Maryland's Serious
Area Plan. EPA previously approved 2008 RFP for the Baltimore Area. See
75 FR 31709 (June 4, 2010). EPA required MDE to update the 2008 target
levels for RFP so that they could be used to calculate the 2011 and
2012 target levels in the Serious Area Plan. In the TSD prepared for
this rulemaking action, EPA reviewed the revised 2008 target levels
calculations in the Serious Area Plan, summarized in Table 2, and
determined that they were done correctly and are approvable.

       Table 2--Baltimore Area 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Description               Formula        VOC          NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2002 Adjusted Base Year         ...........       258.69       369.69
 Inventory Relative To 2008......
B. RFP Ratio.....................  ...........       0.0800       0.0700
C. Emissions Reductions Required         A * B        20.70        25.88
 Between 2002 & 2008.............
D. Target Level for 2008.........          A-C       238.00       343.81
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Projected 2008 Inventories and Determination of RFP
    Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2008
projected VOC and NOX inventories in Section 4 and Appendix
A of the Serious Area Plan. Projected controlled 2008 emissions for the
Baltimore Area are summarized in Tables 4-5 of the Serious Area Plan,
and are presented in Table 3. EPA reviewed the procedures Maryland used
to develop its projected inventories and found them to be reasonable.
For more information on EPA's analysis in proposing to approve the
projected inventories, please see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions
Inventory TSD.

 Table 3--Baltimore Area 2008 Projected Controlled VOC and NOX Emissions
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC          NOX
                Source category                  emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.........................................        15.63       122.64
Area..........................................       108.17         8.43
Non-road......................................        44.04        42.85
Mobile........................................        50.12       125.69
                                               -------------------------
    Total.....................................       217.96       299.62
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2008 RFP is met in the Baltimore Area, the total
projected controlled emissions must be compared to the 2008 target
levels of emissions. As shown in Table 4, the Serious Area Plan
demonstrates that sufficient emission reductions occurred between 2002
and 2008 to meet the 2008 RFP target levels. Thus, EPA proposes to
approve the Baltimore Area's revised 2008 RFP.

    Table 4--Comparison of the 2008 RFP Measure Target Levels Versus
          Projected Controlled Emissions in the Baltimore Area
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Description               VOC emissions       NOX emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Total 2008 Projected           217.96............  299.62.
 Controlled Emissions.
B. Target Level for 2008........  238.00............  343.81.
RFP is met if A < B.............  Yes...............  Yes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. 2011 and 2012 RFP Target Levels and Determination of RFP

1. Requirement
    Serious 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas are subject to RFP
requirements in section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA that require an average
of 3% per year of VOC and/or NOX emissions reductions for
all remaining 3-year periods after the first 6-year period out to the
area's attainment date (2008-2011, and 2011-2012). For a serious area,
such as the Baltimore Area, with an approved 15% rate of progress (ROP)
plan under the 1-hour standard, states can use reductions from VOC or
NOX or a combination of either.
    2011 and 2012 target levels are calculated in the same manner as
the 2008 targets, except that the baseline is the previous target
level, not the 2002 base year inventory. The 2008 target levels are
thus used as the basis for calculating 2011 targets. Similarly, 2011
target levels are used to calculate the 2012 targets.
2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
a. Adjusted Base Year Inventories, 2011 and 2012 RFP Target Levels
    2011 and 2012 RFP calculations can be found in Sections 6 and 7 of
the Serious Area Plan, respectively. In the TSD prepared for this
rulemaking action, EPA reviewed the 2011 and 2012 target levels
calculations in the Serious Area Plan, summarized in Table 5, and
determined that they were done correctly and are approvable and
therefore EPA proposes to approve them.

                        Table 5--Baltimore Area 2011 & 2012 RFP Target Level Calculations
                                               [Ozone season tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Description                                Formula           VOC             NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2011 Target
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2008 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2011...........  ..............          237.71          343.81
B. RFP Ratio....................................................  ..............          0.0600          0.0300
C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2008 & 2011............           A * B           14.28           10.31
D. Target Level for 2011........................................           A - C          223.72          333.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2012 Target
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2011 Adjusted Base Year Inventory Relative To 2012...........  ..............          223.73          333.32
B. RFP Ratio....................................................  ..............          0.0150          0.0150
C. Emissions Reductions Required Between 2011 & 2012............           A * B            3.36            5.00
D. Target Level for 2012........................................           A - C          220.38          328.49
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Projected 2011 and 2012 Inventories and Determination of RFP
    Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2011 and
2012 projected VOC and NOX inventories in Section 4.0 and
Appendix A of the Serious Area Plan. Projected 2011 and 2012 VOC and
NOX emissions are found in Appendix A of the Baltimore
Serious Area Plan. EPA reviewed the procedures Maryland used to develop
its projected inventories and found them to be reasonable. For details
on EPA's analysis, see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory
TSD.
    Projected controlled 2011 and 2012 emissions for the Baltimore Area
are summarized in the Serious Area Plan, in Tables 4-6 and 4-7,
respectively. That data is presented in Table 6.

                 Table 6--Baltimore Area 2011 and 2012 Projected Controlled VOC & NOX Emissions
                                               [Ozone season tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2011                      2012
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                       Source category                            VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
                                                               emissions    emissions     emission    emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................................................        16.79        95.21        17.19        94.79
Area........................................................       106.07         8.54       106.79         8.56
Non-road....................................................        38.26        38.12        35.69        36.05
Mobile......................................................        44.54       104.62        40.23        93.47
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................       205.65       246.48       199.90       232.88
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2011 and 2012 RFP is met in the Baltimore Area, the
total projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target
levels calculated in the previous section of this rulemaking. As shown
in Table 7, the Serious Area Plan demonstrates that sufficient emission
reductions occurred between 2008 and 2011 and between 2011 and 2012 to
meet the 2011 and 2012 RFP target levels. Therefore, the Serious Area
Plan demonstrates 2011 and 2012 RFP in the Baltimore Area, and EPA
proposes to approve the 2011 and 2012 RFP in the Serious Area Plan.

   Table 7--Comparison of the 2011 and 2012 RFP Measure Target Levels
       Versus Projected Controlled Emissions in the Baltimore Area
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    VOC          NOX
                  Description                    emissions    emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                2011 RFP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Total 2011 Projected Controlled Emissions..       205.65       246.48
B. Target Level for 2011......................       223.72       333.49
RFP is met if A < B...........................          Yes          Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                2012 RFP
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Total 2012 Projected Controlled Emissions..       199.90       232.88
B. Target Level for 2012......................       220.38       328.49
RFP is met if A < B...........................          Yes          Yes
------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

1. Requirement
    Emission reductions to meet RFP must be from permanent and
enforceable emission control measures.
2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
    The control measures for which Maryland took credit in order to
meet the RFP requirement in the Baltimore Area are described in Section
8 of the Serious Area Plan. To meet the RFP requirement for the
Baltimore Area, Maryland used a combination of point, onroad mobile,
nonroad mobile, and area source control measures as described in this
section of this rulemaking action.
a. Onroad Mobile Measures
    The onroad mobile measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the
Baltimore Area include enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
(enhanced I/M), Tier I vehicle emission standards and new federal
evaporative test procedures (Tier I), reformulated gasoline, the
national low emission vehicle (NLEV) program, and the federal heavy-
duty diesel engine (HDDE) rule. Maryland calculated the emission
reductions for 2008, 2011, and 2012 RFP using the MOVES model for these
onroad mobile measures. EPA reviewed the procedures that MDE used to
develop its projected inventories, including the use of the MOBILE
model, and found them to be reasonable. For details on EPA's analysis,
see the Baltimore Serious Area Emissions Inventory TSD.
b. Area (Nonpoint) Source Measures
    The area source measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the Baltimore
Area include four Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) rules, Commercial
and Consumer Products (Phases 1 and 2), Architectural and Industrial
Maintenance Coatings (AIM), Portable Fuel Containers (PFC) (Phases 1
and 2), and Industrial Adhesives and Sealants. In the TSD for this
action, EPA evaluated each of these measures and calculated the
emission reductions for each measure, and finds the emission reductions
Maryland claimed for these measures to be reasonable.
c. Non-Road Measures--NONROAD Model
    The non-road mobile measures Maryland used to meet RFP in the
Baltimore Area include Non-Road Small Gasoline Engines, Non-Road Diesel
Engines (Tier I and Tier II), Marine Engine Standards, Emissions
Standards for Large Spark Ignition Engines, and Reformulated Gasoline
Use in Non-Road Motor Vehicles and Equipment. Maryland used the EPA
NONROAD model to calculate 2008, 2011, and 2012 RFP emission reductions
for these measures. As discussed in the Baltimore Serious Area
Emissions Inventory TSD, 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.
d. Point Source Measures
    Maryland took credit for one point source measure in its RFP plan,
the Maryland Healthy Air Act (HAA). In the Baltimore Area, the sources
covered by the HAA are Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner in Anne Arundel
County and C.P. Crane in Baltimore County. In the TSD for this action,
EPA evaluated this measure and verified Maryland's calculated emission
reductions from the affected sources covered by the HAA and found the
emission reductions reasonable.
    Table 8 summarizes the emission reductions achieved by each
measure, as calculated by Maryland in the Serious Area Plan.

                                   Table 8--Summary of RFP Emission Reductions
                                                      [tpd]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              2008                      2011                      2012
          Control measure          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX          VOC          NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Mobile Onroad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MOVES model.......................        52.86       158.43        62.23       181.35        66.59       192.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTC-Consumer Products Phase 1.....         3.70         0.00         3.77         0.00         3.79         0.00
OTC-Consumer Products Phase 2.....         0.00         0.00         0.46         0.00         0.46         0.00

OTC-AIM...........................         6.03         0.00         6.19         0.00         6.19         0.00
OTC-PFC Phase 1...................         6.71         0.00         8.31         0.00         8.35         0.00
OTC-PFC Phase 2...................         0.00         0.00         0.60         0.00         0.60         0.00
OTC-Industrial Adhesives..........         0.00         0.00         2.63         0.00         2.64         0.00
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Area reductions.........        16.44         0.00        21.96         0.00        22.03         0.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Nonroad
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonroad Model.....................        17.85         8.12        26.33        14.55        29.83        17.30
Railroads (Tier 2)................         0.00         1.18         0.00         1.58         0.00         1.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Healthy Air Act (HAA).............         0.00         0.00         0.00        31.86         0.00        37.18
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................        87.14       167.73       110.51       229.35       118.45       248.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Projected emissions for both VOC and NOX are well below
the RFP target levels, as shown in Table 9. Therefore, EPA finds the
Serious Area Plan demonstrated more than sufficient emission reductions
to meet RFP for 2008, 2011, and 2012 and thus finds the RFP plan
approvable.

                              Table 9--Comparison of RFP Targets and Projected Controlled Emissions for the Baltimore Area
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2008                                    2011                                    2012
           Description           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          VOC                 NOX                 VOC                 NOX                 VOC                 NOX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Projected Controlled           217.96............  299.62............  205.65............  246.48............  199.90............  232.88.
 Emissions.
B. Target Level.................  238.00............  343.81............  223.72............  333.49............  220.38............  328.49.
RFP is met if A < B.............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes...............  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that Maryland was not required to demonstrate 2008 RFP,
because EPA previously approved 2008 RFP for the Baltimore Area. See 75
FR 31709 (June 4, 2010). EPA required MDE only to update the 2008
target levels, so that they could be used to calculate the 2011 and
2012 target levels in the Serious Area Plan.

E. Contingency Measures for Failure To Meet RFP

1. Requirement
    Section 182(c) of the CAA requires a state with a moderate or above
ozone nonattainment area to include in its SIP, among other things,
sufficient additional contingency measures in its RFP plan in case the
area fails to meet any applicable milestone. See CAA section 182(c)(9).
These contingency measures must be fully adopted control measures or
rules, so that upon failure to meet a RFP milestone requirement, the
state must be able to implement the contingency measures without any
further rulemaking activities. If triggered, these contingency measures
must achieve additional emission reductions of at least 3% of the
adjusted baseline emissions. For more information on contingency
measures, see the General Preamble to Title I of the CAA (57 FR 13512
(April 16, 1992)) and the Phase 2 Rule. To meet the requirements for
contingency measure emission reductions, EPA allows states to use
NOX emission reductions to substitute for VOC emission
reductions in their contingency plans. Maryland discusses its
contingency measures for failure to meet RFP in Section 12.3 of the
Serious Area Plan.
    EPA's May 26, 2015 determination that the Baltimore Area attained
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS suspends certain planning requirements,
including contingency measures, for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for as
long as the area continues to meet that NAAQS. 80 FR 29970. Considering
the most recent ambient air quality monitoring data, the Baltimore Area
continues to meet the 1997 8-hour NAAQS. Therefore, no contingency
measures are required to address requirements in sections 172 or 182 of
the CAA. See 40 CFR 51.918. However, as discussed in this section of
this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the RFP contingency
measures along with the serious area RFP plan in the Serious Area Plan,
as SIP strengthening measures pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, as
requested by MDE.
2. State Submittal and EPA Evaluation
    Maryland's Serious Area Plan contains contingency measures for
failure to meet the 2012 RFP milestone. The Serious Area Plan relies on
the excess emission reductions from the same measures used to meet the
RFP targets in order to meet the contingency measure target. This is
acceptable under EPA's early implementation policy, set out in the
August 13, 1993 memorandum from G.T. Helms, entitled, ``Early
Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
(CO) Nonattainment Areas.'' Maryland chose to split the 3% contingency
requirement equally between VOC and NOX. For details on the
contingency target level

calculations, see Tables 10 and 11, and for EPA's detailed analysis and
evaluation of the 2012 RFP contingency measure requirement, see EPA's
TSD supporting this rulemaking action.

    Table 10--2012 RFP Contingency Measure Target Level Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Description               Formula         VOC          NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2011 Target Level..........  ..............       223.73       333.49
B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions         ..............         0.00         0.18
 Between 2011 and 2012.
C. 2011 Adjusted Base Year      A - B.........       223.73       333.32
 Inventory Relative to 2012.
D. RFP Ratio..................  ..............       0.0150       0.0150
E. Emissions Reductions         C * D.........         3.36         5.00
 Required Between 2011 & 2012.
F. RFP Target Level for 2012..  C - E.........       220.38       328.49
G. Contingency, 1.5% VOC & NOX  0.015 * C.....         3.36         5.00
H. 2012 Contingency Target      F - G.........       217.02       323.49
 Level.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 11--Comparison of the 2012 RFP Contingency Measure Target Levels
                  Versus Projected Controlled Emissions
                                  [tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Description                    VOC                 NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Projected Controlled           199.90............  232.88.
 Emissions.
B. Contingency Target Level.....  217.02............  323.49.
Contingency Requirement is met    Yes...............  Yes.
 if A < B.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 11, the Serious Area Plan achieved more than
enough emission reductions to meet the contingency measure requirement
for the 2012 milestone year for the Baltimore Area. Therefore, EPA
proposes to approve Maryland's contingency measures from the Serious
Area Plan as SIP strengthening measures.

F. Transportation Conformity Budgets

1. Requirement
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
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.
See 69 FR 40004 (July 1, 2004).
    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. For budgets to be approvable, they must meet, at
a minimum, EPA's adequacy criteria set out at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).
2. State Submittal and EPA's Evaluation
    MDE discusses transportation conformity in Section 10 of the
Baltimore Serious Area Plan. MDE, in consultation with the Baltimore
Regional Transportation Board (BRTB), established MVEBs for 2012. MDE
calculated the 2012 mobile emissions inventory using EPA's MOVES and
the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) models. MDE describes
its methods in Appendix E of the Baltimore Serious Area Plan.
    The MVEBs are the amount of emissions allowed in the SIP for onroad
motor vehicles; it establishes an emissions ceiling for the regional
transportation network. The 2012 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area are 93.5
tpd NOX and 40.2 tpd VOC.
    On November 23, 2015, as part of the adequacy process, EPA posted
the availability of the 2012 MVEBs on EPA's Web site for the purpose of
soliciting public comments.\4\ The comment period for the Baltimore
Area's 2012 MVEBs closed on December 23, 2015, and EPA received no
comments. In a February 22, 2016 Federal Register notice, EPA notified
the public that EPA found the 2012 RFP MVEBs in the Baltimore Serious
Area Plan adequate for transportation conformity purposes. 81 FR
8711.\5\ As a result of EPA's finding, the State of Maryland must use
the 2012 MVEBs from the Serious Area Plan for future transportation
conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm.
    \5\ EPA's February 22, 2016 notification included an inadvertent
error mentioning that the comment period on the Baltimore Area 2012
MVEBs closed November 23, 2015 instead of December 23, 2015. In
fact, the comment period on EPA's Web site for the public to comment
on the adequacy of the Baltimore Area's 2012 MVEBs was open for 30
days from November 23, 2015 through December 23, 2015, and EPA's Web
site correctly includes the appropriate December 23, 2015 closing
date. See https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm, Because the comment period was open for 30 days and
because the public therefore had adequate time to comment on the
2012 MVEBs, EPA's incorrect reference in the February 22, 2016
Federal Register publication after the comment period closed was
harmless and inadvertent error. Thus, the inadvertent error does not
alter EPA's finding that the 2012 RFP MVEBs are adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MVEBs which EPA has determined to be adequate are identical to
the projected controlled 2012 onroad mobile source emissions for the
Baltimore Area in the Serious Area Plan. In addition to the budgets
being adequate for transportation conformity purposes, EPA found the
procedures Maryland used to develop the MVEBs to be reasonable. For
more information on EPA's analysis, see EPA's TSD available in the
docket for this rulemaking. Because the 2012 RFP MVEBs are adequate for
transportation conformity purposes and the methods MDE used to develop
them are correct, the 2012 RFP MVEBs are approvable.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA has reviewed the RFP plan for the Baltimore Area, submitted in
the Serious Area Plan, including updates to

the 2008 RFP target levels previously SIP approved by EPA, the 2011 and
2012 RFP targets levels, control measures used to meet RFP, and
contingency measures for failure to meet the 2012 RFP target, and found
them to be approvable. In addition, EPA determined that MDE used
acceptable techniques and methodologies to update the 2002 base year
and 2008 projected inventories, and to develop the 2011 and 2012
milestone year projected inventories and found them approvable.
Furthermore, EPA has found the Baltimore Area's 2012 MVEBs adequate for
transportation conformity purposes and approvable. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the updates to the 2002 base year inventory,
updates to the 2008 RFP plan and associated 2008 projected emissions
inventory, the 2011 and 2012 RFP plan and associated projected emission
inventories, the contingency measures for failure to meet 2012 RFP, and
the 2012 MVEBs for the Baltimore Area submitted in MDE's July 22, 2013
Serious Area Plan. The other parts of the Serious Area Plan were
withdrawn by Maryland. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

IV. 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 approves 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, pertaining to the Baltimore Area
serious RFP plan, inventories, RFP contingency measures, and MVEBs,
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: April 15, 2016.
Shawn M. Garvin,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2016-10222 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71073-71074]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27030]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2021-0029; OMB No. 1660-0072]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Mitigation Grant Programs (including Mitigation (MT)
Grants Management (formerly Mitigation (MT) Electronic Grants (eGrants)
and FEMA GO) for Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning FEMA's Hazard Mitigation
Assistance (HMA) grant programs specifically, the legacy Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Program (PDM), the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC) program, and the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA)
program. Under FEMA's HMA grant programs, States, local, Tribal, and
Territorial governments (SLTTs) seek assistance to support disaster
mitigation and provide opportunities to reduce or eliminate potential
losses to SLTTs.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 14,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-
2021-0029. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy and
Security Notice that is available via a link on the homepage of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennie Orenstein, Branch Chief,
Policy, Tools and Training Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, FEMA, at [email protected], and 202-212-
4071. You may contact the Records Management Division for copies of the
proposed collection of information at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This collection of information is necessary
to implement grants for the FMA, PDM, and BRIC programs.
    The FMA program is authorized pursuant to sec. 1366, 42 U.S.C.
4104c of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. FMA was
created as part of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act (NFIRA) of
1994, Public Law 103-325. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
of 2012 (BW-12), Public Law 112-141, consolidated the Repetitive Flood
Claims (RFC) and Severe Repetitive Loss grant (SRL) programs into FMA.
Under FMA, cost-share requirements were changed to allow more Federal
funds for properties with repetitive flood claims. The FMA program,
under 44 CFR part 77 (as of October 1, 2021, previously under 44 CFR
part 79), provides funding for measures taken to reduce or eliminate
the long-term risk of flood damage to buildings, manufactured homes,
and other structures insured under the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
    PDM was authorized under sec. 203, 42 U.S.C. 5133, of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act),
Public Law 93-288, as amended by sec. 102 of the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390. As a result of amendments by the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA), Public Law 115-254, the
PDM program was replaced with the BRIC program. Therefore, the PDM is
established as a legacy program. The PDM program provided grants for
cost-effective mitigation actions prior to a disaster event to reduce
overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing
reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. While the last
cycle of the PDM program awards

were made in Fiscal Year (FY) 2019, information collection will
continue in subsequent years for the purposes of grant monitoring and
closeout.
    On August 4, 2020, FEMA established the BRIC program, implementing
Section 1234 of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) Public Law 115-
254. BRIC replaced the PDM grant program that was previously authorized
under Sec. 203 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
    The BRIC program is designed to promote a national culture of
preparedness and public safety through encouraging investments to
protect our communities and infrastructure and through strengthening
national mitigation capabilities to foster resilience. The BRIC program
seeks to fund effective and innovative projects that will reduce risk,
increase resilience, and serve as a catalyst to encourage the whole
community to invest in and adopt policies related to mitigation.
    The guiding principles of the BRIC program include: (1) Support
State and local governments, Tribes, and territories through
capability- and capacity-building, to enable them to identify
mitigation actions and implement projects that reduce risks posed by
natural hazards; (2) encourage and enable innovation while allowing
flexibility, consistency, and effectiveness; (3) promote partnerships
and enable high-impact investments to reduce risk from natural hazards
with a focus on critical services and facilities, public
infrastructure, public safety, public health, and communities; (4)
provide a significant opportunity to reduce future losses and minimize
impacts on the Disaster Relief Fund; (5) promote equity, including by
helping members of disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of
the benefits to disadvantaged communities as referenced in Executive
Order (E.O.) 14008 in line with the Administration's Justice40
Initiative; and (6) support the adoption and enforcement of building
codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public, taking into account future
conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and
have long-lasting impacts on community risk reduction, including for
critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs. The
BRIC program distributes funds annually and applies a Federal/Non-
Federal cost share.
    In accordance with 2 CFR 200.203, FEMA requires that all parties
interested in receiving FEMA mitigation grants to submit an application
package for grant assistance. Applications and subapplications for BRIC
and FMA are submitted via the appropriate system for the respective
programs, FEMAGo and eGrants. Information necessary for the ongoing
monitoring and closeout of the PDM program for FY 2019 and prior are to
be collected via the e-Grants system. The FEMA GO and eGrants system
have been developed to meet the intent of the e-Government initiative,
authorized by Public Law 106-107. This initiative requires that all
Government agencies both streamline grant application processes and
provide for the means to electronically create, review and submit a
grant application via the internet.
    In order to ensure the timely closeout of grants, 2 CFR 200.329
requires that Non-Federal Entities ``must monitor its activities under
Federal awards to assure compliance with applicable Federal
requirements and performance expectations are being achieved.''
Therefore, under 2 CFR part 200 (for BRIC and PDM) and 44 CFR 77.3
(FMA), recipients must complete and submit progress report(s) to the
FEMA Regional Administrator on a quarterly basis, certifying how the
funds are being used and reporting on the progress of activities funded
under the subrecipient awards made to the Recipient by FEMA. The
Regional Administrator and Recipient negotiate the date for submission
of the first report. Quarterly Progress Reports describe the status of
those projects on which a final payment of the Federal share has not
been made to the Recipient, and outline any problems or circumstances
expected to result in noncompliance with the approved award conditions.

Collection of Information

    Title: Mitigation Grant Programs (including Mitigation (MT) Grants
Management (formerly Mitigation (MT) Electronic Grants (eGrants) and
FEMA GO) for Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation
(PDM)).
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0072.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form Quarterly Progress Report (QPR) (and its
instructions) Benefit Cost Determinations, Environmental Reviews,
Project Narrative-Sub-Grant Applications, National Review Panel
Solicitation (as part of the BRIC application process) and SF forms (as
listed in the Supporting Statement).
    Abstract: FEMA's FMA and BRIC programs use an automated grant
application and management system called FEMA GO. The PDM program uses
an automated grant application and management system called MT e-
Grants. These grant programs provide funding for the purpose of
reducing or eliminating the risks to life and property from hazards.
The FEMA GO and eGrants systems include all the application information
needed to apply for funding under these grant programs. FEMA and SLTTs
use the BRIC Panel Review Form to solicit volunteers from SLTTs and
Other Federal Agencies (OFA), to review applications that are routed to
the qualitative panel reviews. The volunteers will review, and score
applications based on a pre-determined scoring criteria. The PDM, FMA,
and BRIC programs will use the same Quarterly Progress Report (QPR)
Form.
    Affected Public: State, local, Tribal, or Territorial Governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 660.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 6,596.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 104,168.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $6,175,920.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $7,600,751.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent L. Brown,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency,Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2021-27030 Filed 12-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-BW-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22697-22699]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10305]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0740; Product Identifier 2016-SW-045-AD; Amendment
39-19631; AD 2019-08-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell) Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-
1, 206L-3, 206L-4, and 407 helicopters. This AD requires inspecting and
cleaning the oil supply restrictor (restrictor) to the freewheel
assembly. This AD was prompted by reports of a blocked oil line
restrictor in the freewheel lubrication system. The actions of this AD
are intended to address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective June 24, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0740; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the Transport Canada AD, the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hatfield, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On August 21, 2018, at 83 FR 42232, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Bell Model 206A, 206B,
206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, and 407 helicopters. The NPRM proposed to
require inspecting and cleaning the freewheel oil supply system, and if
there is blockage in the restrictor, disassembling and inspecting the
freewheel assembly for condition and wear. Additionally, for Model
206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters, the NPRM
proposed to require replacing the reducer with a filter, part number
50-075-1. The proposed requirements were intended to detect blockage in
the restrictor, which could cause failure of the freewheel assembly,
failure of the main rotor mast, and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.
    The NPRM was prompted by Transport Canada AD No. CF-2016-13, dated
May 2, 2016 (AD No. CF-2016-13), issued by Transport Canada, which is
the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition for
Bell Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, 206L-4, and 407
helicopters. Transport Canada advises that they have received two
reports of torsional overload failure of the main rotor mast caused by
a blocked restrictor in the freewheel lubrication system. Transport
Canada states the restrictor may become contaminated during
maintenance, causing blockage. Transport Canada further states that a
blocked restrictor could cause the freewheel assembly to malfunction
and result in failure of the main rotor mast and loss of control of the
helicopter.
    Additionally, the Canadian AD advises that although certain later
versions of these helicopters are equipped with a filter in the
freewheel lubrication system that is designed to trap contaminants and
prevent blockage of the restrictor, installation of the filter does not
guarantee the restrictor will remain free of contaminants. According to
Transport Canada, one occurrence of restrictor blockage resulted from
contaminants being introduced downstream from the filter, which
subsequently caused failure of the freewheel assembly. For these
reasons, AD No. CF-2016-13 requires inspecting and cleaning the
restrictors and filters, and depending on helicopter model, replacing
the reducer with a filter. Additionally, AD No. CF-2016-13 requires a
repetitive on-condition cleaning and inspection of the freewheel oil
supply system.
    The NPRM stated the incorrect date of May 16, 2016, for AD No. CF-
2016-13. The correct issue date is May 2, 2016. We have corrected the
date throughout this Final Rule.
    In addition, the ``Costs of Compliance'' section in the preamble of
the NPRM incorrectly provides the estimated cost ``per inspection
cycle.'' However, the inspection and cleaning requirements are one-time
requirements. ``Per inspection cycle'' has been removed in this section
of the Final Rule. In this regard, we have added a section titled
``Differences Between this AD and the Transport Canada AD'' to this
Final Rule to advise that the Transport Canada AD contains repetitive
requirements and this AD does not.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical
representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in
its AD. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all of the
information provided by Transport Canada and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters
of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest
require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the Transport Canada AD

    The Transport Canada AD includes a repetitive on-condition cleaning
and inspection of the freewheel oil supply system any time the
freewheel oil supply system is opened upstream of the restrictor. This
AD does not require this type of repetitive on-condition cleaning and
inspection because it could be difficult to track.

Related Service Information

    Bell has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 206-14-132 for Model
206A/B and TH-67 helicopters; ASB 206L-14-174 for Model 206L, 206L-1,
206L-3, and 206L-4 helicopters; and ASB 407-14-106 for Model 407
helicopters. Each ASB is Revision A and dated February 9, 2016. This
service information specifies removing, cleaning, inspecting, and
reinstalling certain freewheel assembly components. ASB 206-14-132 and
ASB 206L-14-174 also contain procedures for replacing the reducer with
a filter if not already installed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 2,227 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in
order to comply with this AD.
    At an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour, inspecting and
cleaning the freewheel oil supply system requires about 1 work-hour,
for a cost per helicopter of $85 and $189,295 for the U.S. fleet.
    If required, inspecting the freewheel assembly requires about 1
work-hour, for a cost per helicopter of $85.
    If required, replacing a restrictor with a filter requires about 1
work-hour and required parts cost $125, for a cost per helicopter of
$210.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,

section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator.
``Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope
of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2019-08-10 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (Bell): Amendment
39-19631; Docket No. FAA-2018-0740; Product Identifier 2016-SW-045-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bell Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3,
206L-4, and 407 helicopters, certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a blocked oil line
restrictor. This condition could cause failure of the freewheel
assembly, which could result in failure of the main rotor mast and
subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective June 24, 2019.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service:
    (1) For all helicopters:
    (i) Inspect the oil line restrictor for blockage. If there is
any blockage in the restrictor, before further flight, inspect the
freewheel assembly clutch, inner shaft, outer shaft, forward seal,
cap, and bearings for wear, corrosion, nicks, scratches, and cracks;
the splines for wear, cracks, chipped teeth, and broken teeth; the
housing for flaking; and for free rotation and engagement of the
clutch and bearing. If there is any damage that exceeds allowable
limits or if the clutch or bearing does not engage or freely rotate,
before further flight, repair or replace the freewheel assembly.
    (ii) Clean, inspect, and flush each removed fitting, restrictor,
tube, hose, and filter with dry cleaning solvent. Do not approve for
return to service until each restrictor is free from contamination.
    (2) For Model 206A, 206B, 206L, 206L-1, 206L-3, and 206L-4
helicopters with a reducer, replace the reducer with a filter part
number 50-075-1.

(f) Special Flight Permits

    Special flight permits are prohibited.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Section, Rotorcraft Standards
Branch, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to:
David Hatfield, Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 206-14-132, ASB
206L-14-174, and ASB 407-14-106, all Revision A and dated February
9, 2016, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional
information about the subject of this AD. For service information
identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone
(450) 437-2862 or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD
No. CF-2016-13, dated May 2, 2016. You may view the Transport Canada
AD on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-
2018-0740.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6300, Main Rotor
Drive System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 3, 2019.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-10305 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P