[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 33 (Thursday, February 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 8922]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03485]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent of waiver with respect to land; Indianapolis
International Airport, Indianapolis, Indiana.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change 22.212 acres of
airport land from the federal obligation dedicating it to aeronautical
use and to authorize this land to be used for revenue producing, non-
aeronautical purposes at Indianapolis International Airport,
Indianapolis, Indiana. The aforementioned land is not needed for
current or future aeronautical use.
    The land is north of the Indianapolis Maintenance Center, west of
the Indianapolis Maintenance Center's central energy plant, and
industrial waste water treatment facility located just south of U.S.
Route 40 and west of Brushwood Road. The land is not currently
developed. A solar power generating facility is proposed for
development on the land.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Melanie Myers, Program Manager, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/Fax:
(847) 294-7046 and Eric Anderson, Indianapolis Airport Authority, 7800
Col. H. Weir Cook Memorial Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46241; (317) 487-
5135.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Melanie Myers, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melanie Myers, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300
East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number: (847) 294-
7525/FAX Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The vacant property consists of portions of 4 original airport
acquired parcels. These parcels were acquired with local funds. The
land is located outside the airport operations area. There are no
impacts to the airport by allowing the Indianapolis Airport Authority
to lease the property for solar energy generation.
    The Indianapolis Airport Authority will control use of the parcel
through terms and conditions of the ground lease. The lease will be
subordinate to the sponsor's existing grant assurances. This will
ensure that all activities on the parcel will be compatible with FAA
requirements and airport operations. The disposition of proceeds from
the lease of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's
Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published
in the Federal Register on February 16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    A fair market value (FMV) appraisal for the parcel was completed in
September 2014 in accordance with FAA Order 5100.37A. The appraisal
concluded that the FMV for an annual commercial ground lease of the
property is $5,342.98 per acre.
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Indianapolis International Airport,
Indianapolis, Indiana from its obligations to be maintained for
aeronautical purposes. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the
FAA to financially assist in the change in use of the subject airport
property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding
from the FAA.

Legal Description

    A part of the Southeast Quarter and the Southwest Quarter of
Section 21, Township 15 North, Range 2 East, Wayne Township, Marion
County, Indiana, more particularly described as follows:
    Commencing at brass disk (IAA monument 22-O) found at the Northeast
corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 21; thence South 88
degrees 25 minutes 07 seconds West (all bearings are based on the
Indiana State Plane Coordinate System), East Zone (NAD 83)) along the
North line of said Southeast Quarter 2288.09 feet; thence South 01
degrees 34 minutes 53 seconds East perpendicular to the last described
line 132.00 feet to a chain link fence and the POINT OF BEGINNING (the
following four courses are along said chain link fence); (1) Thence
South 45 degrees 01 minutes 35 seconds East 1095.49 feet; (2) thence
South 44 degrees 54 minutes 51 seconds West 286.62 feet; (3) thence
South 44 degrees 32 minutes 57 seconds East 19.33 feet; (4) thence
south 44 degrees 55 minutes 22 seconds West 616.14 feet; thence North
50 degrees 12 minutes 17 seconds West 498.46 feet; thence North 39
degrees 47 minutes 43 seconds East 146.78 feet; thence North 50 degrees
12 minutes 17 seconds West 608.47 feet; thence North 44 degrees 58
minutes 25 seconds East 856.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 22.212 acres, more or less.

    Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois, on February 10, 2015.
Deb Bartell,
Acting Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, FAA, Great Lakes
Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-03485 Filed 2-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34055-34056]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0816; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace, Boulder City, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Boulder City

Muni Airport, NV. This action supports the development of Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) operations under standard instrument approach and
departure procedures at the airport, for the safety and management of
aircraft within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, August 15, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Roberts, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Boulder City Muni Airport, NV, to support IFR operations
in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at this
airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (84 FR 7839; March 5, 2019) for Docket No. FAA-2018-
0816 to establish Class E extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Boulder City Muni Airport, NV. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 4.25-mile radius of Boulder City Muni
Airport, NV, with a segment 1.25 miles each side of the 299[deg]
bearing from the airport extending from the 4.25-mile radius to 6 miles
northwest of the airport. This airspace is necessary to support IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Boulder City, NV [New]

Boulder City Muni Airport, NV
    (Lat. 35[deg]56'51'' N, long. 114[deg]51'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 4.25 mile radius of Boulder City Muni Airport and that
airspace 1.25 miles each side of the 299[deg] bearing from the 4.25
mile radius to 6.00 miles from the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, July 3, 2019.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-15114 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11480-11482]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03197]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0601; FRL-10019-96-Region 9]

Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan
Revision; Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
limited approval and limited disapproval of a revision to the Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from solvent cleaning
and degreasing operations. We are proposing action on a local rule that
regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0601 at http://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX (415)
972-3024<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the 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?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What is the rule deficiency?
    D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    E. Proposed Action And Public Comment
III. Incorporation by Reference
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 (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Revised        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD.............................            2.31  Solvent Cleaning and             04/12/2017      08/09/2017
                                                      Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 9, 2018, the submittal for YSAQMD Rule 2.31 was deemed
by operation of law to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There is a previous version of Rule 2.31 in the SIP, revised on May
8, 2013, submitted to the EPA by CARB on February 10, 2014, and
approved into the SIP on April 28, 2015 (80 FR 23449). There have been
no other versions submitted since the SIP-approved version.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone, smog, and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control emissions of VOCs. The purpose of Rule 2.31 is to limit the
emissions of VOCs from solvent cleaning operations and solvent
degreasing operations, and from the storage and disposal of materials
used for such operations. The EPA's technical support document (TSD)
has more information about this rule.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the rule?

    Rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)),
must not interfere with applicable requirements concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or other CAA requirements (see CAA
section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP control requirements
in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent or greater emissions
reductions (see CAA section 193).
    Generally, SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source of
VOCs in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see
CAA section 182(b)(2)). The YSAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as Severe nonattainment for the 2008 and 1997 8-hour
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); \1\ and Moderate
nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\2\ Therefore, this rule
must implement RACT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ (40 CFR 81.305).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January
11, 1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.
    5. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents'' EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006.
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Coating
Operations at Aerospace manufacturing and Rework Operations'' EPA-
453/R-97-004, December 1997.
    7. ``Control Technique Guidelines for Flexible Package
Printing'' EPA 453/R-06-003, September 2006.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule 2.31 improves the SIP by establishing one more stringent
emission limit and by clarifying monitoring, recording and
recordkeeping provisions. The rule is largely consistent with CAA
requirements and with relevant guidance regarding enforceability and
SIP revisions. The rule provision that does not meet the evaluation
criteria is summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What is the rule deficiency?

    The following provision does not satisfy the requirements of
section 110 and part D of title I of the Act and prevents full approval
of the SIP revision. Section 110.6 exempts from the requirements of
Rule 2.31 ``[a]ny solvent degreasing operations that are subject to the
NESHAP requirements of 40 CFR part 63 Subpart T- National Emission
Standards for Halogenated Solvent Cleaning.'' CAA Section 182(b)(2)
(``Reasonably available control technology'') states that ``[t]he State
shall submit a revision to the applicable implementation plan to
include provisions to require the implementation of reasonably
available control technology . . . .'' Historically, some states and
districts believed that they could rely on NESHAP requirements to
satisfy RACT SIP requirements, especially where a district had been
delegated authority to enforce the NESHAP rule. However, delegation of
authority to a district or state to enforce a NESHAP rule does not put
that rule or its emission limitations into the SIP. Thus, this
exemption under section 110.6 of YSAQMD rule 2.31 does not meet CAA
section 182(b)(2) because the RACT requirements for sources subject to
the NESHAP requirements of 40 CFR Subpart T are not included in the
SIP.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    None, except to correct the deficiency regarding the NESHAP
exemption.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA
is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the
submitted rule. We will accept comments from the public on this
proposal until March 29, 2021. If finalized, the action will
incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including the provision
identified

as deficient. This approval is limited because the EPA is
simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule under
section 110(k)(3).
    In addition, a final limited disapproval would trigger sanctions
under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approves
subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18
months of the effective date of the final action.
    Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the YSAQMD, and
the EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency
from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any
portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the
federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found
at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/procsip.pdf.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the YSAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available
through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 9, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-03197 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29763]
[DOCID:fr22my08-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of
the Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on June 25, 2008, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, and
C, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Jeffrey Cooper, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (HFZ-470), Food and Drug Administration, 9200 Corporate Blvd.,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER> or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512523. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote
on a premarket approval application, sponsored by Medical Enterprises,
Ltd., for a drug/device combination product designed to prevent
recurrence of bladder cancer. Synergo SB-3TS 101.1 Device with
Mitomycin C is indicated for use for prophylactic treatment of
recurrence in patients following endoscopic removal of Ta-T1 and G1-3
superficial transitional cell carcinoma of the bladder (STCCB). Ta-T1
refers to the stage of the tumor, which is a measure of how deep the
tumor penetrates into the bladder wall, with Ta and T1 being the most
superficial stages for raised bladder tumors. G1-3 refers to the tumor
grade, which is a measure of how aggressive the tumor is likely to
grow, with G1 being the least aggressive, and G3 the most. Synergo and
Mitomycin C treatment is clinically indicated for STCCB patients of
intermediate and high risk.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2008 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before June
16, 2008. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 8:15 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., and between approximately 2:45
p.m. and 3:15 p.m. Those desiring to make formal oral presentations
should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the
general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the
names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the
approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before June
6, 2008. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the
number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be
reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing
session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the
scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify
interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 9, 2008.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ann Marie Williams,
Conference Management Staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: May 15, 2008.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-11455 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78764-78766]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27775]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0169]

Entry-Level Driver Training: SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc.;
Application for Exemption

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption application
from SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc. (SBL). SBL sought an exemption
from the theory and behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor requirements
contained in the entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations for two
of its instructors. SBL specifically requested an exemption from the
requirement that instructors have at least two years of experience
driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial
driver's license (CDL) of the same or higher class and/or the same
endorsement level for which training is to be provided. FMCSA analyzed
the exemption application and public comments and determined that the
application lacked evidence that would ensure an equivalent or greater
level of safety than would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email:
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number ``FMCSA-2021-0169'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number
``FMCSA-2021-0169'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket
by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Dockets Operations.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The ELDT regulations, implemented on February 7, 2022, and set
forth in 49 CFR 380, subparts F and G, established minimum training
standards for individuals applying for certain CDLs and defined
curriculum standards for theory and BTW training. The ELDT regulations
also established an online training provider registry (TPR),
eligibility requirements for providers to be listed on the TPR, and
requirements for instructors. Under 49 CFR 380.713, a training provider
must use instructors

who meet the definitions of ``Theory instructor'' and ``Behind-the-
wheel (BTW) instructor,'' set forth in 49 CFR 380.605. The definitions
of ``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605
require that instructors hold a CDL of the same (or higher) class, with
all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to
be provided, and have either: (1) a minimum of 2 years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the
same endorsement; or (2) at least 2 years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor.

Applicant's Request

    SBL seeks an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that
a training provider use instructors who meet the definitions of
``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605. SBL
states that it has two employees who do not have two years of required
driving experience. SBL states the employees were qualified to provide
training prior to implementation of the ELDT regulations on February 7,
2022, have Class A CDLs with tanker endorsements, and are medically
qualified.
    SBL argues that the instructor qualifications required by the ELDT
regulations will have a severe negative impact on its business and on
the driver shortage. SBL requests an exemption that would allow the two
instructors to provide instruction without having two years of driving
experience while they accumulate the required level of experience. They
assert that the exemption would allow for full instructor staffing,
resulting in a ``50% increase of approximately 96 students annually.''
If the exemption is not granted, SBL states that it would be forced to
terminate these employees and seek to replace them with other
instructors with unproven track records.
    SBL reasons that FMCSA has included ``grandfathering'' provisions
in the implementation of other new rules and therefore should apply a
``grandfathering'' provision to the ELDT requirements relating to
driving experience. SBL points to 49 CFR 380.603 which provides that
individuals who obtained a Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP) before
February 7, 2022, are not required to comply with the ELDT rule if they
obtain a CDL before the CLP expires. SBL is requesting similar
consideration for State-licensed instructors who met applicable Federal
requirements prior to February 7, 2022.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, SBL offers a list of the
qualifications for the two driver training instructors for whom the
exemption is requested. According to SBL, both individuals meet the
qualifications that were required prior to implementation of the ELDT
rule; both have Class A CDLs with tanker endorsements; both are
medically qualified; both graduated from a State-licensed truck driver
training school; both have taught over the road driving; both have
previously trained commercial drivers; one individual worked as a
commercial driver; and both have the ability to instruct all topics
required by the ELDT regulations.
    SBL indicates that the request for the exemption ``places no known
negative safety impact'' and avers that SBL will continue to adhere to
all applicable State and Federal regulations that govern the safe
operation of CMVs. SBL notes that the two instructors met the
qualification requirements of the South Carolina Department of Motor
Vehicles, in effect prior to implementation of the ELDT regulations,
and their instruction has not negatively impacted safety. Those
requirements allow instructors with fewer than two years of driving
experience to deliver training.
    SBL also cites to a 2013 Bureau of Transportation Statistics report
stating that motor vehicle fatalities in 2010 were trending downward.
SBL also cites to a 2008 American Transportation Research Institute
(ATRI) report that found no relation between driver training duration
and subsequent driver safety performance. A copy of SBL's application
for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On May 25, 2022, FMCSA published notice of SBL's application and
requested public comment [87 FR 31930]. The Agency received nine
comments. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA)
strongly opposed the exemption request. OOIDA commented that they were
one of the primary industry stakeholders on the ELDTAC when the
``framework'' of the ELDT rule was agreed upon during the negotiated
rulemaking, including support of the provision that required CDL
experience for training instructors, as CDL experience is essential to
deliver comprehensive training to entry-level drivers. OOIDA believes
there is no substitute for an experienced BTW trainer and employing
these instructors will help achieve the objectives of the ELDT
regulations. OOIDA states that exempting instructors without CDL
experience will not result in an equivalent or greater level of safety
than is now required by the ELDT regulations. OOIDA added that the
delayed implementation of the ELDT final rule, from 2020 to 2022,
allowed even more time for training providers to meet the requisite CMV
driving experience, or the minimum experience required to serve as a
BTW CMV instructor under the ELDT regulations.
    Seven other individual commenters opposed the requested exemption,
while only one commenter supported the request. Of those opposing the
exemption, a number cited similar concerns raised by OOIDA, i.e., that
the ELDT rule was agreed upon through the negotiated rulemaking process
and, therefore, the rule's ``key'' provisions should not be changed.
Another commenter stated that if SBL's petition is approved, the Agency
may as well remove the two-year requirement for instructors, and that
other CDL driver training schools will request similar relief. The only
commenter supporting the request noted that SBL stated that these
individuals have trained before and should be allowed to be
grandfathered in as qualified instructors.

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated SBL's application and the public comments. The
Agency concludes that SBL presented insufficient evidence to establish
that not complying with the provisions of the ELDT regulations relating
to driving experience requirements for CMV instructors would meet or
exceed the level of safety achieved by complying with the ELDT
regulations. Although SBL provides the resumes of the two instructors
for whom it seeks the exemption, SBL has not demonstrated that allowing
the instructors to provide ELDT without the required experience would
achieve an equivalent level of safety as would be achieved by complying
with the ELDT instructor qualification requirements. SBL cites to 2010
data indicating a downward trend in motor vehicle fatalities, however,
that data is not relevant to whether not complying with the ELDT
regulations provides an equivalent level of safety (https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data). As to the 2008 ATRI
study SBL cites, FMCSA and the ELDTAC considered that study, along with
other studies, during the rulemaking. FMCSA concluded that data quality
and

methodological issues prevented the study from being used as definitive
guidance and further noted that ATRI described the study's results as
preliminary. Further, the ATRI study is not determinative of whether
the ELDT provided by the individuals subject to this exemption request
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to that achieved by
complying with the current instructor qualifications.
    The Agency concurs with commenters stating allowing some
individuals to provide ELDT without the required driving experience
could open the door for similar exemption requests. If exemptions are
granted on a widespread basis, such a result would be inconsistent with
a primary goal of the ELDT regulations, which was to establish a
uniform Federal minimum ELDT standard.
    For the above reasons, SBL's exemption application is denied.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-27775 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73524-73525]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29193]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9012-4]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/25/2013 Through 11/29/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html

EIS No. 20130355, Draft EIS, USFS, UT, ADOPTION--TransWest Express
Transmission Project, Comment Period Ends: 01/21/2014, Contact: Kenton
Call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service has adopted the
U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and the
U.S. Department of Energy's Western Area Power Administration's Draft
EIS 20130180, filed 06/19/2013. The U.S. Forest Service was a
cooperating agency for the project. Therefore, recirculation of the
document is not necessary under Section 1506.3 of the CEQ Regulations.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130308, Draft EIS, USACE, NC, Morehead City Harbor Integrated

Dredged Material Management Plan, Port of Morehead City, Comment Period
Ends: 02/03/2014, Contact: Hugh Heine<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 11/01/2013; Extending Comment
Period from 12/16/2013 to 02/03/2014.

EIS No. 20130325, Draft EIS, NPS, MO, Ozark National Scenic Riverways
Draft General Management Plan, Wilderness Study, Comment Period Ends:
01/08/2014, Contact: William Black<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to the FR Notice Published 11/08/2013; Extending Comment
Period from 12/30/2013 to 01/08/2014.

    Dated: December 3, 2013.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-29193 Filed 12-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 4617]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1803]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Surplus Property
Release at Laurinburg-Maxton Airport, Maxton, NC

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), notice is
being given that the FAA is considering a request from the Laurinburg-
Maxton Airport Commission to waive the requirement that approximately
322.24 acres of airport property, located at the Laurinburg-Maxton
Airport, be used for aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address:

Atlanta Airports District Office Attn: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager,
1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 2-260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747.

    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to JoAnn Gentry, Executive Director, Laurinburg-
Maxton Airport Commission at the following address:

Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission, 16701 Airport Road, Maxton, NC
28364.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Nealis, Program Manager, Atlanta
Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Building, Suite 2-
260, Atlanta, GA 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may be
reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by the
Laurinburg-Maxton Airport Commission to release approximately 322.24
acres of airport property at the Laurinburg-Maxton Airport. The
property consists of one parcel located on the south side of Skyway
Church Road (State Road 1435). This property is currently shown on the
approved Airport Layout Plan as non-aeronautical use land and the
proposed use of this property is compatible with airport operations.
The City will ultimately sell the property for future industrial use
with proceeds of the sale providing funding for future airport
development.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the Laurinburg-Maxton
Airport.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 20, 2012.
Scott L. Seritt,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-1803 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 958-964]
[FR Doc No: X10-70107]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0957; FRL-9100-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory, Reasonable Further
Progress Plan, Contingency Measures, Reasonably Available Control
Measures, and Transportation Conformity Budgets for the Baltimore 1997
8-Hour Moderate Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet the 2002 base year emissions
inventory, the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, RFP contingency
measure, and reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Baltimore moderate 1997 8-hour ozone
nonattainment area. EPA is also proposing to approve the transportation
conformity motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) and associated with
this revision. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision because it
satisfies 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 demonstrates further progress in reducing
ozone precursors. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision pursuant
to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 8, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2009-0957 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0957, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such

deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2009-0957. 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. 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 Maryland Department of the
Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland
21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria A. Pino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    The following is provided to aid in locating information in this
document.

I. What Action is EPA Taking?
II. What is the Background for this Action?
III. What is EPA's Evaluation of the Revision?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Maryland SIP
submitted by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) on June
4, 2007 to meet the emissions inventory and RFP requirements of the CAA
for the Baltimore moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (NAA).
EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 base year emissions inventory, the
15 percent RFP plan and associated projected 2008 emission inventories,
the contingency measures for failure to meet 2008 RFP, the RACM
analysis, and the RFP 2008 MVEBs. The RFP plan demonstrates that
emissions will be reduced 15 percent for the period of 2002 through
2008. The volatile organic compound (VOC) MVEB is 41.2 tons per day
(tpd) and the nitrogen oxides (NOX) MVEB is 106.8 tpd. EPA
is proposing to approve the SIP revision because it satisfies RFP,
contingency measure, RACM, RFP transportation conformity, and emissions
inventory requirements for areas classified as moderate nonattainment
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and demonstrates further progress in
reducing ozone precursors. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
pursuant to section 110 and part D of the CAA and EPA's regulations.

II. What is the Background for this Action?

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (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 pre-existing respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These actions became effective on June 15,
2004. Among those nonattainment areas is the Baltimore moderate NAA.
This NAA includes Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll,
Harford, and Howard Counties, all in Maryland.
    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 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (Phase 1 rule), published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951), specifies that States must submit attainment demonstrations for
their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later than three years from
the effective date of designation, that is, by June 15, 2007.
    Pursuant to the Phase 1 rule, an area was classified under subpart
2 of the CAA based on its 8-hour design value 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 Baltimore ozone NAA
was classified under subpart 2 as a moderate nonattainment area.
    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 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, that
describes how the area will achieve actual emissions reductions of VOC
and NOX from a baseline emissions inventory.

III. What is EPA's Evaluation of the Revision?

    EPA's analysis and findings are discussed in this proposed
rulemaking and a more detailed discussion is contained in the Technical
Support Document for this Proposal which is available on line at http:/
/www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0957.
    On June 4, 2007, Maryland submitted a comprehensive plan for the
Baltimore NAA to address the CAA's 8-hour ozone attainment requirements
that were identified earlier (the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan). The SIP
submittal included an attainment demonstration plan, RFP plans for 2008
and 2009, a RACM analysis, contingency measures, on-road VOC and
NOX MVEBs, and the 2002 base year emissions inventory. These
SIP revisions were subject to notice and comment by the public and the
State addressed the comments received on the proposed SIPs. All
sections of this SIP submittal with the exception of the attainment
demonstration plan will be discussed in this rulemaking. The attainment
demonstration plan sections of this SIP submittal will be discussed in
a separate rulemaking.

A. Base Year Emissions Inventory

    An emissions inventory is a comprehensive, accurate, current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources and is required by
section 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 to ozone formation. EPA
recommended 2002 as the base year emissions inventory, and is therefore
the starting point for calculating RFP. Maryland submitted its 2002
base year emissions inventory on June 4, 2007. A summary of the
Baltimore NAA 2002 base year VOC and NOX emissions
inventories is included in Table 1, below.

  Table 1--Baltimore NAA 2002 Base Year VOC & NOX Emissions in Tons per
                                Day (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Emission source category                   VOC      NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.................................................    13.88   111.88
Stationary Area.......................................   116.81     8.18
Non-Road Mobile.......................................    70.22    40.96
On-Road Mobile........................................    70.57   177.06
Total (excluding Biogenics)...........................   271.48   338.08
Biogenics.............................................   223.20        0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Adjusted Base Year Inventory and 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 is 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 Baltimore NAA, the CAA specifies a 15
percent reduction in ozone precursor emissions over an initial six year
period. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA interpreted this requirement for areas
that were also designated nonattainment and classified as moderate or
higher for the 1-hour ozone standard. In the Phase 2 Rule, EPA provided
that an area classified 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 six year period following the
baseline emissions inventory year, that is, 2002-2008.
    The Baltimore ozone NAA under the 1-hour ozone standard had the
same boundary as the Baltimore NAA under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. The Baltimore nonattainment area under the 1-hour ozone
standard was classified as severe. EPA approved Maryland's 15% plan for
the Baltimore severe ozone nonattainment area on February 2, 2000 (65
FR 5252). Therefore, according to the Phase 2 Rule, the RFP plan for
the Baltimore NAA 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 Reid Vapor Pressure RVP rules
promulgated prior to 1990 are not creditable for achieving RFP emission
reductions. Therefore, the 2002 base year inventory is adjusted by
subtracting the VOC and NOX emission reductions that are
expected to occur between 2002 and the future milestone years due to
the FMVCP and RVP rules.
    Maryland sets out its calculations for the adjusted base year
inventory and 2008 RFP target levels in Section 5 of the Baltimore 8-
hour ozone plan.
    Step 1. Calculate the Baltimore NAA 2002 anthropogenic base year
inventory. This is found in Table 5-1 of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone
plan, and shown in Table 2, below.

      Table 2--Baltimore NAA 2002 Anthropogenic Base Year Inventory
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source category                      VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      13.88     111.88
Area..............................................     116.81       8.18
Non-Road..........................................      70.22      40.96
On-Road...........................................      70.57     177.06
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................     271.48     338.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 2. Maryland calculated the non-creditable emission reductions
between 2002 and 2008 by modeling its 2002 and 2008 motor vehicle
emissions with all post-1990 CAA measures turned off, and calculating
the difference. See, Table 3, below.

        Table 3--Baltimore NAA Non-Creditable Emission Reductions
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Source category                      VOC        NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 2002 On-Road..................................    101.876    211.145
(ii) 2008 On-Road.................................     92.778    188.541
Non-creditable Reductions (i)-(ii)................       9.10      22.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 3. Maryland's calculations of the Baltimore NAA 2002 VOC and
NOX inventories adjusted relative to 2008 and VOC and
NOX target levels for 2008 are found in Table 5-4 and
Appendix C

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

        Table 4--Baltimore NAA 2008 RFP Target Level Calculations
                           [Ozone season tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Description              Formula          VOC           NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2002 Rate-Of Progress Base  .............        271.48        338.08
 Year Inventory.
B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions        .............          9.10         22.60
 Between 2002 And 2008.
C. 2002 Adjusted Base Year     A-B..........        262.38        315.48
 Inventory Relative To 2008.
D. RFP Reductions Totaling     .............          8             7
 15%.
E. Emissions Reductions        C * D........         20.99         22.08
 Required Between 2002 & 2008.
F. Target Level for 2008.....  C-E..........        241.39        293.40
------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Projected Inventories and Determination of RFP

    Maryland describes its methods used for developing its 2008
projected VOC and NOX inventories in Section 4.0 and
Appendix B of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. Projected uncontrolled
and controlled 2008 VOC and NOX emissions are found in
Appendix C of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. EPA reviewed the
procedures Maryland used to develop its projected inventories and found
them to be reasonable.
    Projected controlled 2008 emissions for the Baltimore NAA are
summarized in Table 4-3 of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. The data
from Table 4-3 is presented below, in Table 5, below.

  Table 5--Baltimore NAA 2008 Projected Controlled VOC & NOX Emissions
                                  (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       VOC        NOX
             Emission source category               emissions  emissions
                                                      (tpd)      (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.............................................      15.63     122.64
Area..............................................     108.17       8.43
Non-road..........................................      54.21      39.60
Mobile............................................      41.23     106.84
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................     219.25     277.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if 2008 RFP is met in the Baltimore NAA, the total
projected controlled emissions must be compared to the target levels
calculated in the previous section of this document. As shown below in
Table 6, the total VOC and NOX emission projections meet the
2008 emission targets. Therefore, the 2008 RFP in the Baltimore NAA is
demonstrated.

  Table 6--Determination of Whether RFP Is Met in 2008 in the Baltimore
                                   NAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       VOC        NOX
                    Description                     emissions  emissions
                                                      (tpd)      (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions......     219.25     277.50
B. Target Level for 2008..........................     241.39     293.40
RFP met if A < B..................................      (\1\)      (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yes.

D. Control Measures and Emission Reductions for RFP

    The control measure Maryland took credit for in order to meet the
RFP requirement in the Baltimore NAA are described in Section 6.0 of
the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. Maryland used a combination of on-road
mobile, non-road mobile, and area source control measures to meet the
RFP requirement for the Baltimore NAA.
    The on-road mobile measures Maryland used to meet 2008 RFP in the
Baltimore NAA 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 RFP using the MOBILE model for these on-road mobile
measures. EPA reviewed the procedures that MDE used to develop its
projected inventories, including the use of the MOBILE model, and found
them to be reasonable. Maryland calculated the on-road mobile 2008
emission reductions to be 42.45 tpd VOC and 59.10 tpd NOX.
    The non-road measures Maryland used to meet 2008 RFP in the
Baltimore NAA include non-road small gasoline engines, non-road diesel
engines (Tier I and Tier II), marine engine standards, emission
standards for large spark engines, and reformulated gasoline used in
non-road motor vehicles and equipment. Maryland used the NONROAD model
to calculate emission reductions from these non-road measures. EPA
reviewed the procedures that MDE used to develop its projected
inventories, including the use of the NONROAD model, and found them to
be reasonable. Maryland calculated the non-road mobile 2008 emission
reductions to be 17.89 tpd VOC and 6.74 tpd NOX.
    The other measures that Maryland used to meet RFP in the Baltimore
NAA are railroad engine standards (Tier 2), the consumer and commercial
products rule (Phase I), the architectural and industrial (AIM)
coatings rule, and the portable fuel containers rule (Phase I). In the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for this action, EPA evaluates each of
these measures and calculated the projected 2008 emission for each
measure. For details, please refer to EPA's TSD.
    The tier 2 railroad engine standards for newly manufactured and
remanufactured diesel-powered locomotives and locomotive engines took
effect in 2000. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from railroad
engine to be 1.37 tpd NOX.
    A Federal measure requires reformulation of AIM coatings, which are
field-applied coatings used by industry, contractors, and homeowners to
coat houses, buildings, highway surfaces, and industrial equipment for
decorative or protective purposes. Maryland's AIM rule was effective on
March 29, 2004. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from Maryland's
AIM rule to be 6.02 tpd VOC.
    The phase I commercial and consumer products rule requires the
reformulation of certain consumer products to reduce their VOC content.
Maryland's consumer products rule was effective on August 18, 2003. EPA
calculated 2008 emission reductions from Maryland's consumer and

commercial products rule to be 3.70 tpd VOC.
    The phase I portable fuel containers rule introduces performance
standards for portable fuel containers and spouts, and is intended to
reduce emissions from storage, transport and refueling activities.
Maryland's portable fuel container rule was effective on January 21,
2002. EPA calculated 2008 emission reductions from Maryland's portable
fuel containers rule to be 8.13 tpd VOC.
    Table 7 summarizes the emission reductions that Maryland claimed in
the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan to meet RFP in the Baltimore NAA. For
certain control measures, the 2008 projected emission reductions
calculated by EPA differ from the 2008 projected emission reductions
that MDE is taking credit for in the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. The
total 2008 projected emission reductions calculated by EPA are greater
than the emission reductions claimed by MDE in the Baltimore 8-hour
ozone plan. Therefore, the emission reductions claimed in the Baltimore
8-hour ozone plan are approvable.

 Table 7--Control Measures and 2008 Emission Reductions in the Baltimore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Control measure                   VOC (tpd)  NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-road Mobile Measures...........................      42.45      59.10
Non-road Model....................................      17.89       6.74
Railroads (Tier 2)................................       0.00       1.18
OTC--Consumer Products Phase 1....................       3.70       0.00
OTC--AIM Coatings.................................       6.03       0.00
OTC--Portable Fuel Containers Phase 1.............       6.71       0.00
                                                   ---------------------
    Total.........................................      76.78      67.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Measures

    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, MDE
chose to use only VOC reductions to meet the contingency measure
requirement in the Baltimore NAA. MDE discusses its Baltimore NAA
contingency measures for failure to meet RFP in Section 10.2 of the
Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. MDE calculated the contingency VOC
reduction for the Baltimore NAA 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--Baltimore NAA 2008 RFP Contingency Measure Target Level
                              Calculations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Description             Formula          VOC           NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. 2002 Rate-Of Progress Base  .............        271.48        338.08
 Year Inventory.
B. FMVCP/RVP Reductions        .............          9.10         22.60
 Between 2002 And 2008.
C. 2002 Adjusted Base Year     A-B..........        262.38        315.48
 Inventory Relative To 2008.
D. RFP Reductions Totaling     .............          8             7
 15%.
E. RFP Emissions Reductions    C * D........         20.99         22.08
 Required Between 2002 & 2008.
F. Contingency Percentage....  .............          3.00          0.00
G. Contingency Emission        C * F........          7.87          0.00
 Reduction Requirements.
H. Contingency Measure Target  C-E-G........        233.52        293.40
 Level for 2008.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To determine if Maryland met the three percent contingency measure
requirement for the Baltimore NAA, the total projected controlled
emissions must be compared to the contingency measure target levels
calculated above. As shown below in Table 9, the total VOC and
NOX emission projections meet the 2008 contingency measure
targets. Therefore, MDE has met the contingency measure requirement for
the Baltimore NAA.

  Table 9--Evaluation of the Baltimore NAA 2008 RFP Contingency Measure
                               Requirement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Description                     VOC (tpd)  NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Total 2008 Projected Controlled Emissions......     219.25     277.50
B. Contingency Measure Target Level for 2008......     233.52     293.40
Contingency measure requirement met if A < B......      (\1\)      (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yes.

F. RACM Analysis

    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 non-road emission source categories that meets
the following criteria:
     The control measure is technologically feasible.
     The control measure is economically feasible.
     The control measure does not cause ``substantial
widespread and long-term adverse impacts.''
     The control measure is not ``absurd, unenforceable, or
impracticable.''
     The control measure can advance the attainment date by at
least one year.
    MDE addresses the RACM requirement in Section 7.0 and Appendix E of
the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. To meet the RACM requirement, Maryland
must demonstrate that it has adopted all RACM necessary to move the
Baltimore NAA toward attainment as expeditiously as practicable and to
meet all RFP requirements. As demonstrated above in Sections C and D of
this document, Maryland has met the RFP requirements for the Baltimore
NAA.
    MDE used two independently developed lists of potential control
measures for its RACM analysis. The first list consists of the RACM
analysis performed for the Washington, DC NAA's 8-hour ozone plan. The
second list of measures was developed by the Baltimore Metropolitan
Council (BMC) with MDE in 2006. These measures are evaluated in
Appendices E-1 and E-2 of the Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan.
    EPA has reviewed MDE's RACM analysis in the TSD for this action.
MDE evaluated all source categories that could contribute meaningful
emission reductions, and evaluated an extensive list of potential
control measures. MDE considered the time needed to develop and adopt
regulations and the time it would take to see the benefit from these
measures. EPA concurs with MDE's conclusion that there are no RACM that
would have advanced the moderate area attainment date of 2010 for the
Baltimore NAA. Therefore, MDE's RACM analysis in the Baltimore 8-hour
ozone plan is approvable.

G. Transportation Conformity Budgets

    Transportation conformity is required by CAA section 176(c). EPA's
conformity rule requires that transportation plans, programs and
projects conform to State air quality implementation plans and
establishes the criteria and procedure for determining whether or not
they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will
not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards.
    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.
    MDE discusses transportation conformity in Section 8.0 of the
Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. MDE describes the methods it used to
calculate the 2008 mobile emissions inventory in Appendix F of the
Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. The Baltimore NAA MVEB for the 2008 RFP is
based on the projected 2008 mobile source emissions accounting for all
mobile control measures. The MVEBs for the 2008 RFP are shown in Table
10, below.

                 Table 10--Baltimore NAA 2008 RFP MVEBs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         VOC (tpd)                            NOX (tpd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.2.......................................................        106.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a March 27, 2009 Federal Register notice (74 FR 13433), EPA
notified the public that EPA found that the 2008 RFP MVEBs in the
Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan are adequate for transportation conformity
purposes. In addition to the budgets being adequate for transportation
conformity purposes, EPA found the procedures Maryland used to develop
the MVEBs to be reasonable. The budgets are identical to the projected
2008 on-road mobile source emission inventories. Because the 2008 RFP
MVEBs are adequate for transportation conformity purposes and the
methods MDE used to develop them are correct, the 2008 RFP budgets are
approvable.

V. What are EPA's Conclusions?

    EPA's review of the 2002 base year emissions inventory; the 2008
ozone projected emission inventory; the 2008 RFP plan; RFP contingency
measures; Maryland's RACM analysis; and 2008 transportation conformity
budgets contained in MDE's June 4, 2007 SIP revision submittal for the
Baltimore NAA fully addressed the CAA's requirements. Therefore, EPA is
proposing approval of those following elements of MDE's June 4, 2007
Baltimore 8-hour ozone plan. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 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.);
     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 NAA's
2002 base year emissions inventory; 2008 ozone projected emission
inventory; 2008 RFP plan; RFP contingency measures; RACM analysis; and
2008 transportation conformity budgets does not have Tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 23, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-17 Filed 1-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P