34906 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

comments, this action will be effective 

August 12, 2013. 

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 approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 rule 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 28, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1885 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ff)(15) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ff) * * * 

(15) Approval—On December 7, 2012, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Ohio portion of the Wheeling area. The 

budgets are being revised with budgets 

developed with the MOVES2010a 

model. The 2009 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the Ohio portion 

of the Wheeling area are 4.70 tpd VOC 

and 13.30 tpd NOX. The 2018 motor 

vehicle emissions budgets for the Ohio 

portion of the Wheeling area are 2.15 

tpd VOC and 5.18 tpd NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13735 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2013–0050; FRL–9821–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; 

Lima 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan Revision to Approved Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), EPA is approving the request by 

Ohio to revise the Lima, Ohio 1997 8- 

hour ozone maintenance air quality 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

replace motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(budgets) with budgets developed using 

EPA’s Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. 

Ohio submitted the SIP revision request 

to EPA on January 11, 2013. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective August 12, 2013, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by July 11, 

2013. If adverse comments are received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2013–0050, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34907 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2013– 

0050. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The 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 email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Anthony 

Maietta, Environmental Protection 

Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Maietta, Environmental 

Protection Specialist, Control Strategies 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777, 

maietta.anthony@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is EPA approving? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity. 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets. 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model. 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a. 

III. What are the criteria for approval? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories. 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010aBased Budgets. 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based 

Budgets. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is EPA approving? 

EPA is approving new MOVES2010abased budgets for the Lima, Ohio 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance area that will 

replace MOBILE-based budgets in the 

SIP. The Lima, Ohio area was 

redesignated to attainment of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard effective June 15, 

2007 (72 FR 27648), and MOBILE6.2- 

based budgets were approved in that 

action. Upon the effective date of 

approval of the MOVES-based budgets, 

they must then be used in future 

transportation conformity analyses for 

the area as required by section 176(c) of 

the CAA. See the official release of the 

MOVES2010 emissions model (75 FR 

9411–9414) for background, and section 

II.(c) below for details. 

II. What is the background for this 

action? 

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation 

Conformity 

Under the CAA, states are required to 

submit control strategy SIP revisions 

and maintenance plans for 

nonattainment and maintenance areas 

for a given National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). These SIP 

revisions and maintenance plans 

include budgets of on-road mobile 

source emissions for criteria pollutants, 

including precursors. Transportation 

plans and projects ‘‘conform’’ to (i.e., 

are consistent with) the SIP when they 

will not cause or contribute to air 

quality violations, or delay timely 

attainment of the NAAQS. 

b. Prior Approval of Budgets 

EPA previously approved budgets for 

the Lima, Ohio, 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area for volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides 

(NOX). The area’s ozone maintenance 

plan established 2009 and 2018 budgets 

that demonstrated a reduction in 

emissions from the monitored 

attainment year of 2004. 

c. The MOVES Emissions Model 

The MOVES model is EPA’s state of 

the art tool for estimating highway 

emissions. EPA announced the release 

of MOVES2010 on March 2, 2010 (75 FR 

9411). Use of the MOVES model is 

required for regional emissions analyses 

for transportation conformity 

determinations outside of California that 

begin after March 2, 2013. 

MOVES2010a was used to estimate 

emissions in the Lima area for the same 

milestone years as the original budgets 

in the SIP. The Ohio Environmental 

Protection Agency (OEPA) is revising 

the budgets using the latest planning 

assumptions, including population and 

employment updates. In addition, 

newer vehicle registration data has been 

used to update the age distribution of 

the vehicle fleet. Updating the budgets 

with MOVES2010a allows the area to 

continue to show conformity to the SIP 

in plans, transportation improvement 

programs, and projects. The interagency 

consultation group has had extensive 

consultation on the requirements and 

need for new budgets. 

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on 

MOVES2010a 

On January 11, 2013, Ohio submitted 

final budgets based on MOVES2010a 

that cover the Lima area. Ohio received 

no comments during the public review 

and comment period. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34908 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1The safety margin is achieved by adding a 

certain percentage of emissions, in tons per day, 

onto the MOVES-based on-road emissions budgets. 

In this case, Ohio chose to add a 15% safety margin 

to their budgets. The safety margin cannot exceed 

the combined emissions reduction for the area. 

The new MOVES2010a based budgets 

are for the years 2009 and 2018, for both 

VOCs and NOX, and are detailed later in 

this notice. Ohio also provided Lima’s 

total emissions, including mobile 

emissions based on MOVES2010a, for 

the 2004 attainment year, the 2009 

interim budget year, and the 2018 

maintenance year. The combined 

emissions reduction from all sectors 

between the years 2004 and 2018 is 

shown as well. Total emissions include 

point, area, non-road mobile and onroad mobile sources. The total 

emissions and combined emissions 

reduction from all sectors from 2004 to 

2018 for VOC and NOX for each area is 

shown in tables 1 and 2. As noted in 

tables 1 and 2, for on-road emissions of 

both VOC and NOX for the years 2009 

and 2018, a 15% safety margin 1 has 

been applied to reach the values shown. 

TABLE 1—TOTAL VOC EMISSIONS WITH MOVES2010a MOBILE EMISSIONS IN LIMA, OHIO

[Tons per day] 

Sector 2004 

Attainment 

2009 

Interim 

2018 

Maintenance 

Combined emissions reduction 

(2004–2018) 

Point ................................................................................................. 4.92 5.28 6.44 

Area ................................................................................................. 5.08 4.85 4.89 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................ 6.35 5.39 2.38 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................. 2.11 1.89 1.36 

Total .......................................................................................... 18.46 17.41 15.07 3.39 

TABLE 2—TOTAL NOX EMISSIONS WITH MOVES2010a MOBILE EMISSIONS IN LIMA, OHIO

[Tons per day] 

Sector 2004 

Attainment 

2009 

Interim 

2018 

Maintenance 

Combined emissions reduction 

(2004–2018) 

Point ................................................................................................. 12.57 13.66 15.98 

Area ................................................................................................. 0.47 0.52 0.55 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................ 12.23 10.65 6.18 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................. 4.85 3.72 2.82 

Total .......................................................................................... 30.12 28.55 25.53 4.59 

The Lima Allen County Regional 

Planning Commission has added only a 

portion of the overall safety margin 

available for NOX and VOCs to the 

budgets for 2009 and 2018. As shown in 

tables 1 and 2, the submittal 

demonstrates how the area’s combined 

emissions decline from the attainment 

year of 2004 to maintain the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

No additional control measures were 

needed to maintain the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard in the Lima, Ohio area. 

An appropriate safety margin for NOX

and VOCs was established by the 

interagency consultation group, which 

consists of representatives from the 

Federal Highway Administration, 

OEPA, Ohio Department of 

Transportation, and EPA. The submitted 

budgets for the Lima, Ohio area are 

addressed later in this notice. 

III. What are the criteria for approval? 

EPA requires that revisions to existing 

SIPs and budgets continue to meet 

applicable requirements (e.g., 

reasonable further progress, attainment, 

or maintenance). The SIP must also 

meet any applicable SIP requirements 

under CAA section 110. In addition, 

adequacy criteria found at 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before 

EPA can find submitted budgets 

adequate and approve them for 

conformity purposes. 

Areas can revise their budgets and 

inventories using MOVES without 

revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP 

continues to meet applicable 

requirements when the previous motor 

vehicle emissions inventories are 

replaced with MOVES base year and 

milestone, attainment, or maintenance 

year inventories, and (2) the state can 

document that growth and control 

strategy assumptions for non-motor 

vehicle sources continue to be valid and 

any minor updates do not change the 

overall conclusions of the SIP. For more 

information, see EPA’s latest ‘‘Policy 

Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for 

SIP Development, Transportation 

Conformity, and Other Purposes’’ (April 

2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/stateresources/transconf/ 

policy.htm#models. The submittal 

meets this requirement as described 

below in the next section. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of the state’s 

submittal? 

a. The Revised Inventories 

The January 11, 2013, SIP revision 

request for the Lima, Ohio 1997 ozone 

maintenance plan seeks to revise only 

the on-road mobile source inventories. 

OEPA has certified that the control 

strategies remain the same as in the 

original SIP, and that no other control 

strategies are necessary. OEPA finds that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, and point) have not changed 

significantly from the original submittal. 

This is confirmed by the monitoring 

data for the Lima area, which continues 

to monitor attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. 

OEPA’s submittal confirms that the 

total emissions in the revised SIP 

(which includes MOVES2010a 

emissions from mobile sources) as 

shown in tables 1 and 2 demonstrate 

that emissions in the Lima, Ohio area 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34909 

continue to decline and remain below 

the attainment levels. 

Ohio has submitted MOVES2010abased budgets for the Lima, Ohio area 

that are clearly identified in the 

submittal. The budgets are displayed in 

table 3. 

TABLE 3—MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSION

BUDGETS (MOVES) FOR THE LIMA

1997 OZONE AREA (ALLEN COUNTY, 

OHIO) 

[Tons per day] 

Year 2009 2018 

VOC .................. 5.39 2.38 

NOX .................. 10.65 6.18 

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010aBased Budgets 

EPA is approving the MOVES2010abased budgets submitted by Ohio for use 

in determining transportation 

conformity in the Lima, Ohio 1997 

ozone maintenance area. EPA evaluated 

the MOVES-based budgets submitted on 

January 11, 2013, using the adequacy 

criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) 

and our in-depth evaluation of the 

state’s submittal and SIP requirements. 

Before submitting the revised budgets, 

OEPA has shown that it followed all 

necessary conformity procedures. The 

budgets are clearly identified and 

precisely quantified in the submittal. 

The budgets, when considered with 

other emissions sources, are consistent 

with continued maintenance of the 1997 

ozone standard. The budgets are clearly 

related to the emissions inventory and 

control measures in the SIP. The 

changes from the previous budgets are 

clearly explained with the change in the 

model from MOBILE6.2 to 

MOVES2010a and the revised and 

updated planning assumptions. The 

inputs to the model are detailed in the 

appendix to the submittal. EPA has 

reviewed the inputs to the 

MOVES2010a modeling and 

participated in the consultation process. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

and the Ohio Department of 

Transportation have taken a lead role in 

working with the Lima Allen County 

Regional Planning Commission to 

provide accurate, timely information 

and inputs to the MOVES2010a model 

run. The state has documented that 

growth and control strategy assumptions 

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

non-road, and point) continue to be 

valid and any minor updates do not 

change the overall conclusions of the 

SIP. 

Ohio’s submission confirms that the 

SIP continues to demonstrate 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard 

because the total emissions in the 

revised SIP (including MOVES2010a 

emissions for mobile sources) continue 

to decrease from the attainment year to 

the final year of the maintenance plan, 

as shown in tables 1 and 2. The budgets 

include an appropriate margin of safety 

while still maintaining total emissions 

below the attainment level. As table 3 

shows, the submitted budgets include 

an appropriate margin of safety while 

still maintaining total emissions below 

the attainment level. 

Based on our review of the January 

11, 2013, submittal, EPA has 

determined that the SIP will continue to 

meet the requirements if the revised 

motor vehicle emissions inventories are 

replaced with MOVES2010a 

inventories. 

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based 

Budgets 

Upon the effective date of the 

approval of the revised budgets, the 

state’s existing MOBILE6.2-based 

budgets will no longer be applicable for 

transportation conformity purposes. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, 

the replacement MOVES2010-based 

budgets for the Lima, Ohio 1997 ozone 

maintenance plan, as submitted on 

January 11, 2013. We are publishing this 

action without prior proposal because 

we view this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipate no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, we are publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the state plan if 

relevant adverse written comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective August 

12, 2013 without further notice unless 

we receive relevant adverse written 

comments by July 11, 2013. If we 

receive such comments, we will 

withdraw this action before the effective 

date by publishing a subsequent 

document that will withdraw the final 

action. All public comments received 

will then be addressed in a subsequent 

final rule based on the proposed action. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period. Any parties interested 

in commenting on this action should do 

so at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. If we do not receive 

any comments, this action will be 

effective August 12, 2013. 

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 approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this 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 rule 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. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34910 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 12, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 28, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.1885 is amended by 

adding paragraph (ff)(16) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(ff) * * * 

(16) Approval—On January 11, 2013, 

Ohio submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Lima, Ohio area. The budgets are being 

revised with budgets developed with 

the MOVES2010a model. The 2009 

motor vehicle emissions budgets for the 

Lima, Ohio area are 5.39 tpd VOC and 

10.65 tpd NOX. The 2018 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets for the Lima, Ohio 

area are 2.38 tpd VOC and 6.18 tpd 

NOX. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13734 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0033; FRL–9822–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Maryland; 

Revisions to the State Implementation 

Plan Approved by EPA Through Letter 

Notice Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; administrative 

change. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Maryland 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) which 

EPA had previously approved through a 

Letter Notice action. The revision 

removes an obsolete Consent Decree for 

the Allegany County Board of 

Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School. 

EPA has determined that this action 

falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ exemption 

in the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA), which authorizes agencies to 

dispense with public participation and 

which allows an agency to make an 

action effective immediately (thereby 

avoiding the 30-day delayed effective 

date otherwise provided for in the 

APA). 

DATES: This action is effective June 11, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0033. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

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: 

Harold A. Frankford at (215) 814–2108, 

or by email at 

frankford.harold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Maryland 

SIP. On November 15, 2012, Maryland 

submitted a SIP revision requesting 

removal of an obsolete Consent Decree 

for the Allegany County Board of 

Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School 

since the school’s coal-fired boiler was 

demolished in 2007. EPA determined 

that the revision was a minor SIP 

revision without any substantive 

changes and complied with all 

applicable requirements of the CAA and 

EPA regulations concerning such SIP 

revisions. EPA approved this revision 

through Letter Notice to Maryland dated 

February 6, 2013 consistent with the 

procedures outlined in EPA’s Notice of 

Procedural Changes on SIP processing 

published on January 19, 1989 at 54 FR 

2214 and consistent with the procedures 

outlined in an April 6, 2011 memo from 

Janet McCabe, Deputy Assistant 

Administrator for the Office of Air and 

Radiation, regarding Regional 

Consistency for the Administrative 

Requirements of State Implementation. 

Today’s action completes the February 

6, 2013 administrative amendment to 

the SIP by removing the Consent Order 

entry for Beall Jr./Sr. High School from 

the 40 CFR 52.1070(d) table. 

II. EPA Action 

EPA is taking final action on 

administrative changes to the Maryland 

SIP. EPA has determined that today’s 

action falls under the ‘‘good cause’’ 

exemption in the section 553(b)(3)(B) of 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES