Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34911 

which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’ 

authorizes agencies to dispense with 

public participation and section 

553(d)(3) which allows an agency to 

make an action effective immediately 

(thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed 

effective date otherwise provided for in 

the APA). With respect to the SIP 

revision described above, today’s 

administrative action simply codifies 

provisions which are already in effect as 

a matter of law in Federal and approved 

state programs. Under section 553 of the 

APA, an agency may find good cause 

where procedures are ‘‘impractical, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest.’’ Public comment for this 

administrative action is ‘‘unnecessary’’ 

because the revisions are administrative 

and non-substantive in nature. 

Immediate notice of this action in the 

Federal Register benefits the public by 

providing the public notice of the 

updated Maryland SIP. Approval of 

these revisions will ensure consistency 

between state and Federally-approved 

rules. EPA has determined that these 

changes will not relax the SIP or 

adversely impact air emissions. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) 

(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. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). In taking action 

on this SIP revision, EPA already made 

such a finding. Thus, the SIP revisions 

announced in this notice became 

effective upon EPA’s February 6, 2013 

Letter Notice to Maryland. Today’s 

administrative action simply codifies a 

provision which is already in effect as 

a matter of law in Federal and approved 

state programs. EPA will submit a report 

containing this action and other 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this action 

in the Federal Register. This action is 

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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. This action to 

remove the obsolete Consent Decree for 

the Allegany County Board of 

Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School 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, Particulate matter. 

Dated: May 28, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

§ 52.1070 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for Beall Jr./Sr. High School. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13718 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0511; FRL–9822–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Maryland on 

December 20, 2007, November 12, 2010, 

and June 22, 2011, as amended March 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34912 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

22, 2013. These SIP revisions pertain to 

adoption by Maryland of a Low 

Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, which 

incorporates by reference California’s 

second generation Low Emission 

Vehicle (LEVII) program regulations. 

Maryland’s LEV regulations require new 

2011 and subsequent model year 

passenger cars, light trucks, and 

medium-duty vehicles having a gross 

vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 14,000 

pounds or less that are sold in Maryland 

to meet California emission standards. 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) contains 

authority by which states other than 

California may adopt new motor vehicle 

emissions standards that are identical to 

California’s standards. Maryland’s 

supplemental SIP revisions submitted 

on November 12, 2010 and June 22, 

2011 modify its program to harmonize 

with updates by California to its LEVII 

program and Federal GHG standards 

effective on 2012–2016 model year 

vehicles. The March 22, 2013 SIP 

amendment withdraws from the SIP 

revision submittal the portion of 

Maryland’s LEV program rule that 

incorporates by reference a provision of 

California’s rule regulating retrofit 

systems for conversion of motor 

vehicles to use natural gas or liquefied 

petroleum gas in lieu of the fuel on 

which they were originally certified. 

EPA is approving all of Maryland’s LEV 

Program SIP revisions, except for the 

portion of Maryland’s regulation 

withdrawn by Maryland from the SIP on 

March 22, 2013, in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

11, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0511. 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: 

Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email 

at rehn.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), 

EPA published in the Federal Register 

a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) 

for the State of Maryland proposing 

approval of three SIP revisions related 

to Maryland’s LEV program. The first of 

these Maryland SIP revisions was 

submitted to EPA on December 20, 2007 

(#07–16) and included Maryland’s Low 

Emission Vehicle Program, as adopted 

by the state in 2007. On November 12, 

2010, Maryland submitted a revision to 

the 2007 SIP submittal (#10–08) to 

amend its Clean Car Program rules to 

incorporate changes made by California 

to its LEV regulations since Maryland’s 

initial adoption of the program in 2007. 

On June 22, 2011, Maryland submitted 

another SIP revision (#11–05) consisting 

of updates to Maryland’s program 

regulations adopting additional changes 

made by California to its own rules 

since Maryland’s regulatory changes 

made as part of the 2010 SIP submittal. 

On March 22, 2013, Maryland submitted 

a letter to EPA formally withdrawing a 

portion of the SIP revision submitted 

June 22, 2011. Specifically, Maryland 

requested withdrawal of a section of its 

LEV program rule (COMAR 

26.11.34.02B(17)), which incorporated 

by reference section 2030 of Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the 

California Code of Regulations for 

natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas 

retrofit systems. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

A detailed description of Maryland’s 

and California’s Low Emission Vehicle 

program is provided in the NPR 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), and will 

not be repeated here. However, a brief 

summary of Maryland’s SIP revision is 

provided below. 

A. Maryland’s Low Emission Vehicle 

Program 

Maryland adopted into law the 

Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, the 

purpose of which was to implement 

California’s LEV program in Maryland. 

The purpose of doing so was to improve 

ambient air quality in Maryland. This 

statute compelled the Maryland 

Department of Environment to adopt a 

rule in November 2007, which 

established a new Maryland regulatory 

chapter COMAR 26.11.34, entitled ‘‘Low 

Emission Vehicle Program.’’ 

The regulation requires that 2011 and 

newer model year passenger cars, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles 

(with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less 

that are sold in Maryland as new cars, 

or that are transferred in Maryland) 

meet the applicable California LEVII 

emissions standards. The objectives of 

the program are twofold. The first is to 

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) and volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions, which are groundlevel ozone precursor pollutants. The 

program relies on decreasing fleet 

average emission standards, applicable 

to each vehicle manufacturer each year. 

This program uses varying standards 

established by California, ranging from 

LEV standards to zero emission vehicle 

(ZEV) standards, which are the most 

stringent standards set. In between these 

fall: Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles 

(ULEV), Super-Ultra Low Emission 

Vehicles (SULEV), Partial Zero Emission 

Vehicles (PZEV), and Advanced 

Technology-Partial Zero Emission 

Vehicles (AT–PZEV). Each 

manufacturer complies by selling a mix 

of vehicles meeting any of these 

standards, as long as their salesweighted, overall average of the various 

standard sets meets the overall fleet 

average and ZEV requirements. 

Maryland has adopted California’s 

second generation of LEV program rules, 

or LEV II, which were approved by 

California on October 28, 1999, and 

became effective in California on 

November 27, 1999. Maryland has not 

adopted or submitted to EPA for SIP 

approval subsequently adopted 

California rules, including California’s 

LEV III program rules. 

The second objective of Maryland’s 

LEV program is to reduce greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions from subject new 

vehicles purchased for use in Maryland. 

The GHG program also makes use of a 

fleet average compliance method 

(similar in methodology to that of the 

non-methane organic gas (NMOG) fleet 

average standard portion of the LEV 

program), which serves as a means to 

reduce ground level ozone and air toxics 

pollution. Overall compliance is 

demonstrated by showing that the entire 

fleet of vehicles produced by each 

manufacturer (as distributed within the 

allowable standard sets) meets the 

specified fleet average NMOG and GHG 

standards. 

B. Maryland’s Clean Car Program SIP 

Revisions 

Maryland initially adopted 

regulations .01 to .14 under COMAR 

26.11.34, which is a new chapter 

entitled ‘‘Low Emission Vehicle 

Program.’’ Maryland formally submitted 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34913 

a SIP revision for the Maryland Clean 

Car Program to EPA on December 20, 

2007. 

Maryland subsequently amended 

regulation .02 (entitled ‘‘Incorporation 

by Reference’’) of COMAR 26.11.34 via 

a proposed state action published in the 

Maryland Register on August 14, 2009, 

followed by a final action published on 

November 6, 2009. Maryland submitted 

this amendment to EPA as a SIP 

revision on November 12, 2010. 

Maryland once more amended 

regulation .02 (Incorporation by 

Reference) of COMAR 26.11.34. 

Maryland submitted a SIP revision to 

EPA on June 22, 2011 to amend the 

prior SIP revisions to reflect this most 

recent state regulatory amendment to 

the Maryland LEV program rule. On 

March 22, 2013, Secretary Summers of 

the Maryland Department of the 

Environment submitted a letter to EPA’s 

Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin 

formally withdrawing a portion of the 

June 22, 2011 SIP revision. 

The specific requirements and other 

details of Maryland’s LEV program SIP 

revisions and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action are explained in the 

NPR and will not be restated here. EPA 

received adverse comments during the 

public comment period on our August 

23, 2012 NPR. A summary of those 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

provided in Section III of this action. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter challenges 

Maryland’s authority to adopt, by 

reference, California’s motor vehicle 

regulations for alternative fuel 

aftermarket systems, found in 

California’s Code of Regulations (CCR), 

at 13 CCR 2030. The commenter argues 

that the authority in section 177 of the 

CAA allowing other states to adopt 

California’s standards (which are 

waived from preemption under CAA 

section 209(b)) is limited to new motor 

vehicles and motor vehicle engines, and 

that this authority does not extend to 

adoption of California’s regulations 

governing aftermarket alternative fuel 

systems. Further, the commenter argues 

that CAA section 209(c) preempts states 

other than California from adopting 

aftermarket parts regulations when EPA 

has acted on its authority to regulate 

such parts under Federal law. The 

commenter argues that the portion of 

California’s regulation (13 CCR 2030) 

which Maryland has incorporated by 

reference has not been updated in many 

years and is functionally outdated and 

conflicts in some aspects with more 

recent Federal rules on the subject. 

Response: On March 22, 2013, 

Maryland officially withdrew the 

portion of Maryland’s LEV Program SIP 

Revision #11–05 which this commenter 

is addressing. Specifically, Maryland 

requested withdrawal of COMAR 

26.11.34.02B(17), which served to adopt 

by reference § 2030 of Division 3, 

Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the 

CCR. EPA is taking final rulemaking 

action on the remaining portions of the 

Maryland SIP submittals from December 

20, 2007, November 12, 2010, and June 

22, 2011. Because Maryland has 

withdrawn this portion of the SIP and 

because EPA is not taking any final 

rulemaking action on COMAR 

26.11.34.02B(17), the commenter’s 

arguments related to CAA sections 177 

and 209 are not relevant to this final 

action. 

Comment: Several commenters 

generally supported efforts to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from new 

light to medium duty vehicles, per 

Maryland’s LEV program. One 

commenter expressed disappointment 

that Federal law under the CAA limits 

states choices to adoption of either 

California new vehicle standards or 

Federal standards, rather than allowing 

states to adopt their own more stringent 

standards. The commenter argues that 

the current pace in limiting GHG 

emissions is insufficient to limit climate 

change or to ameliorate damage already 

done. 

Response: EPA appreciates the 

commenters’ support for clean vehicle 

programs and the commensurate GHG 

benefits resulting from adoption of a 

LEV program. With respect to states’ 

authority to adopt their own standards 

different from Federal new vehicle 

standards or those of California, 

Congress explicitly limited this 

authority with the prohibition language 

of section 209 of the CAA. That section 

states that ‘‘no State or political 

subdivision thereof shall adopt or 

attempt to enforce any standard relating 

to the control of emissions from new 

motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines 

subject to this part.’’ That same section 

of the CAA allows the Administrator to 

waive that prohibition for California, 

which had already adopted standards to 

control new motor vehicle emissions 

prior to March 30, 1966. Further, section 

177 of the CAA allows any state with an 

approved SIP plan to adopt and enforce 

standards for new motor vehicles or 

motor vehicle engines that are identical 

to California standards for which a 

waiver has been granted, if specified 

lead time requirements are met. 

Congress was explicit in the relevant 

CAA authority of their intent to grant 

states the option to adopt either 

California or Federal vehicle emission 

standards—and also to prohibit states 

from independently adopting or 

enforcing any third set of vehicle 

standards. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving three SIP revisions 

submitted by Maryland with respect to 

Maryland’s adoption of a Low Emission 

Vehicle Program into the Maryland SIP. 

These SIP revisions were submitted on 

December 20, 2007; November 12, 2010; 

and June 22, 2011. EPA is excluding 

from final approval COMAR 

26.11.34.02B(17), as Maryland formally 

requested withdrawal of that regulatory 

provision in a letter to EPA dated March 

22, 2013. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
34914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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. 

This action to approve the Maryland 

Low Emission Vehicle Program into the 

Maryland SIP 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 28, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

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. 

Subpart V—Maryland 

■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph 

(c) is amended by adding entries in 

numerical order for COMAR 26.11.34 to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP 

Code of Maryland administrative regulations 

(COMAR) citation 

Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

* * * * * * * 

26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program 

26.11.34.01 ....... Purpose .......................................... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.02 (except .02B(17)).Incorporation by Reference ............ 5/16/11 

11/16/09 

12/17/07 

6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.03 ....... Applicability and Exemptions ......... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.04 ....... Definitions ....................................... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.05 ....... Emissions Requirements ................ 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.06 ....... Fleet Average NMOG Requirements.12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.07 ....... Initial NMOG Credit Account Balances.12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.08 ....... Fleet Average Greenhouse Gas 

Requirements.

12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.09 ....... Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Requirements.12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.10 ....... Initial ZEV Credit Account Balances.12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.11 ....... Vehicle Testing ............................... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.12 ....... Warranty ......................................... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

26.11.34.13 ....... Manufacturer Compliance Demonstration.12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34915 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued 

Code of Maryland administrative regulations 

(COMAR) citation 

Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Additional explanation/ 

citation at 40 CFR 52.1100 

26.11.34.14 ....... Enforcement ................................... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13717 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0289; FRL–9822–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Revision to the Classification and 

Implementation of the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for the Northern Virginia 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Virginia State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions consist of two 

amendments: an amendment to the list 

of nonattainment areas; and an 

amendment to the 1997 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone for purposes of 

transportation conformity. EPA is 

approving these revisions to include the 

classification of Northern Virginia as 

‘‘marginal’’ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

and to revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the purposes of transportation 

conformity as established by the EPA in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

12, 2013 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by July 11, 2013. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0289 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0289, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, Air 

Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0289. 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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 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 Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of SIP Revision 

On March 20, 2013, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of two amendments to 

the Virginia Administrative Code: (1) an 

amendment to the list of nonattainment 

areas in section 9VAC5–20–204, and (2) 

an amendment to the 1997 NAAQS for 

ozone specified in section 9VAC5–30– 

55. The first is an amendment that 

reflects EPA’s rulemaking action on May 

21, 2012 to establish initial air quality 

designations for most areas in the 

United States for the 2008 primary and 

secondary ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087). 

In this rulemaking action, EPA 

designated the Northern Virginia 

nonattainment area as ‘‘marginal’’ for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The second 

amendment reflects a separate EPA 

rulemaking action also made on May 21, 

2012, in which the EPA provided for the 

revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for transportation conformity purposes 

one year after the effective date of 

designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

(77 FR 30160). For Virginia, one year 

after the effective date is July 20, 2013. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES