Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50969 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment 

demonstration, included in Maryland’s 

June 4, 2007 attainment plan SIP 

revision, as demonstrating attainment 

for the Philadelphia Area by the 

applicable attainment date of June 15, 

2011. 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 1997 8-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration for the 

Philadelphia Area submitted by 

Maryland on June 4, 2007, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: August 8, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20780 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0511; FRL–9718–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

several State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Maryland. These revisions pertain to 

adoption by Maryland of the California 

Low Emission Vehicle Program (LEV), 

or California Clean Car Program. The 

underlying Maryland regulations 

require all 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 other states may 

adopt new motor vehicle emissions 

standards that are identical to 

California’s standards. Specifically, 

Maryland has adopted California’s light 

and medium-duty new vehicle 

standards by reference, and then 

submitted these rules as part of the 

State’s SIP revision to EPA. The 

Maryland Clean Car program has two 

objectives. The first is to reduce 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

both of which are precursors to the 

formation of ground level ozone 

pollution, from new motor vehicles sold 

in Maryland. The second objective of 

the program is to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions from new motor vehicles 

weighing under 10,000 pounds GVWR. 

Maryland submitted supplemental SIP 

revisions to modify its own program to 

match updates by California to its 

program and to harmonize with recently 

established Federal (and California) 

greenhouse gas and fuel economy 

standards promulgated by EPA 

applicable to 2012–2016 model year 

vehicles of the same vehicle types 

covered by Maryland’s rules. This 

action is being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 24, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2012–0511 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0511, 

Donna Mastro, Acting 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–2012– 

0511. 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 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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 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: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On December 20, 2007, the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment submitted a revision (#07– 

16) to its SIP for its Low Emission 

Vehicle Program, also referred to in this 

notice as the Maryland Clean Car 

Program. On November 12, 2010, 

Maryland submitted a revision to the 

2007 SIP submittal (#10–08) to amend 

its Clean Car Program rules to reflect 

changes made by California to its LEV 

regulations since the time they were 

originally adopted by Maryland. On 

June 22, 2011, Maryland submitted 

another SIP revision (#11–05) consisting 

of another update to its Clean Car 

regulations to adopt additional changes 

made by California to the California LEV 

rules since Maryland last updated its 

rules and submitted them to EPA as part 

of the November 2010 SIP submittal. 

I. Description of the SIP Revisions 

A. Background 

1. Maryland’s Air Quality With Respect to 

the Ozone NAAQS 

2. What are the relevant statutory and 

regulatory requirements for Federal and 

California vehicle emission standards? 

3. California’s LEV Program 

4. California Greenhouse Gas Standards 

5. Federal Greenhouse Gas Vehicle 

Standards 

B. Maryland’s Clean Car Program 

1. Overview—Maryland’s Clean Car 

Program Rules 

2. Maryland’s Clean Car Program SIP 

Revisions 

a. Maryland’s December 2007 SIP Revision 

b. Maryland’s November 2010 SIP Revision 

c. Maryland’s June 2011 SIP Revision 

II. Proposed EPA Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Description of the SIP Revision 

A. Background 

1. Maryland’s Air Quality With Respect 

to the Ozone NAAQS 

Under the 1990 CAA, eleven counties 

(and the City of Baltimore) in Maryland 

were classified as nonattainment under 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. These 

counties were distributed across three 

nonattainment areas: the Baltimore 

severe nonattainment area (Anne 

Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, 

and Howard Counties, and the City of 

Baltimore); the Maryland portion of the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA serious 

nonattainment area (Calvert, Charles, 

Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince 

George’s Counties), which was later 

reclassified to severe; and the Maryland 

portion of the Philadelphia-WilmingtonTrenton, PA-NJ-MD-DE severe 

nonattainment area (Cecil County). EPA 

revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, 

effective June 15, 2005 (see EPA’s final 

rule entitled ‘‘Identification of Ozone 

Areas for Which the 1-Hour Standard 

Has Been Revoked’’ published in the 

August 3, 2005 Federal Register, 70 FR 

4470). At the time EPA revoked the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS, none of these 

Maryland counties had been 

redesignated to attainment. 

Effective June 15, 2004, these same 

eleven Maryland counties (and the City 

of Baltimore) were designated by EPA as 

nonattainment with respect to the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, these Maryland 

counties were again part of three 

separate nonattainment areas 

(distributed in the same means as the 

former 1-hour ozone standard) albeit 

with slightly different area names and 

classifications: The Baltimore, MD 

moderate nonattainment area; the 

Washington, DC-MD-VA moderate 

nonattainment area; and PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-MDDE moderate nonattainment area. 

Upon designation, each of these three 

nonattainment areas had attainment 

dates no later than June 2010. On 

February 28, 2012, EPA determined that 

the Washington area attained the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 

2010 attainment date (77 FR 11739). 

EPA issued a 1-year attainment date 

extension (i.e., from June 2010 to June 

2011) for the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, via a final rule 

published in the January 21, 2011 

Federal Register (76 FR 3840). On 

March 26, 2012, EPA determined that 

the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic 

City area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its June 15, 2011 attainment 

date (77 FR 17341). 

EPA issued a 1-year attainment date 

extension (i.e., from June 2010 to June 

2011) for the Baltimore 1997 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area, via a final 

rule published in the March 11, 2011 

Federal Register (76 FR 13289). On 

February 1, 2012, EPA made a 

determination that (based on certified 

ambient air quality monitoring data 

from 2008–2010) the Baltimore area did 

not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS by its June 15, 2011 attainment 

date. As a result, the Baltimore area was 

reclassified from moderate to serious 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment for the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. Consequently, 

Maryland must submit SIP revisions for 

the Baltimore area to meet CAA serious 

ozone nonattainment requirements by 

September 2012. 

On May 21, 2012, EPA designated the 

same eleven Maryland counties (and the 

City of Baltimore) as nonattainment for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (77 FR 

30088). The Washington area and 

Maryland portion of the PhiladelphiaWilmington-Atlantic City area were 

classified as marginal and the Baltimore 

area was classified as moderate 

nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. 

2. What are the relevant statutory and 

regulatory requirements for Federal and 

California vehicle emission standards? 

Vehicles sold in the United States are 

required by the CAA to be certified to 

meet U.S. Federal emission standards or 

to meet California’s emission standards. 

States are forbidden from adopting their 

own standards, but may adopt 

California’s emission standards for 

which EPA has granted a waiver of 

preemption. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50971 

Section 209 of the CAA prohibits 

states from adopting or enforcing 

standards relating to the control of 

emissions from new motor vehicles or 

new motor vehicle engines. However, 

EPA may waive that prohibition to any 

state that adopted its own vehicle 

emission standards prior to March 30, 

1966. As California was the only state to 

do so, California has authority under the 

CAA to adopt its own motor vehicle 

emissions standards. California must 

demonstrate to EPA that its newly 

adopted standards will be ‘‘* * * in the 

aggregate, at least as protective of public 

health and welfare as applicable Federal 

standards.’’ EPA then must grant a 

waiver of preemption for California’s 

standards, unless the demonstration 

fails to meet specific requirements set 

forth in section 209 of the CAA 

applicable to such a waiver 

demonstration. 

Section 177 of the CAA authorizes 

other states to adopt California’s 

standards in lieu of Federal vehicle 

standards, provided the state adopting 

California’s standards does so at least 

two years prior to the model year in 

which they become effective and that 

EPA has issued a waiver of preemption 

to California for such standards. 

In February 2000, EPA adopted the 

second tier of Federal motor vehicle 

standards enacted under the 1990 CAA, 

via a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 

6698). These standards, referred to as 

the Tier 2 Federal emission standards 

(or Tier 2 standards) were phased in 

beginning with the 2004 model years, 

except in states that had formally 

adopted California’s emission standards 

in lieu of the Federal standards. 

3. California’s LEV Program 

In 1990, California’s Air Resources 

Board (CARB) adopted its first 

generation of LEV standards applicable 

to light and medium duty vehicles. 

California’s vehicle emission standards 

program is referred to as the California 

Low Emissions Vehicle Program (CA 

LEV), or simply as the LEV program. 

These LEV standards were phased-in 

beginning in model year 1994 through 

model year 2003. California adopted a 

second generation of CA LEV standards, 

known as LEV II, in 1999. LEV II was 

phased-in beginning with model year 

2004 through model year 2010. EPA 

granted a Federal preemption waiver for 

California’s LEV II program on April 22, 

2003 (68 FR 19811). 

In December 2000, CARB modified 

the LEV II program to take advantage of 

some elements of the Federal Tier 2 

regulations to ensure that only the 

cleanest vehicle models would continue 

to be sold in California. In 2006, CARB 

adopted technical amendments to its 

LEV II program that amended the 

evaporative emission test procedures, 

onboard refueling vapor recovery and 

spitback test procedures, exhaust 

emission test procedures, and vehicle 

emission control label requirements. 

These technical amendments align each 

of California’s test procedures and label 

requirements with its Federal 

counterpart, in an effort to streamline 

and harmonize the California and 

Federal programs and to reduce 

manufacturer testing burdens and 

increase in-use compliance. On July 30, 

2010, EPA published a notice in the 

Federal Register confirming that 

CARB’s 2006 technical amendments are 

within-the-scope of existing waivers of 

preemption for CARB’s LEV II program 

(75 FR 44948). 

Under California’s LEV II program, 

each vehicle manufacturer must show 

that their overall fleet for a given model 

year meets the specified phase-in 

requirements according to the fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

requirement for that year. The fleet 

average non-methane hydrocarbon 

emission limits become progressively 

lower each model year. The LEV II 

program requires auto manufacturers to 

include a ‘‘smog index’’ label on each 

vehicle sold, which is intended to 

inform consumers about the amount of 

pollution coming from that vehicle 

relative to other vehicles. 

In addition to the LEV II 

requirements, California requires that 

minimum percentages of passenger cars 

and the lightest light-duty trucks 

marketed in California by a large or 

intermediate volume manufacturer meet 

Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards, 

hereafter referred to as a ZEV program 

or ZEV mandate. 

4. California Greenhouse Gas Vehicle 

Standards 

California adopted Assembly Bill 

1493 (A.B. 1493), into law in July 2002, 

which required CARB to develop and 

adopt greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

standards for light-duty vehicles. A.B. 

1493 directed CARB to consider costeffectiveness, technological capability, 

economic impacts, and flexibility for 

manufacturers in meeting the standard. 

In August 2004, CARB approved GHG 

emissions standards for light-duty 

vehicles. CARB’s standards regulated 

GHG emissions associated with vehicle 

operation, air conditioning operation 

and maintenance, and production of 

vehicle fuel. The standards apply to 

noncommercial light-duty passenger 

vehicles manufactured for model years 

2009 and beyond. The standards, 

specified in terms of carbon dioxide 

(CO2) equivalent emissions, apply to 

vehicles in two size classes: passenger 

cars and small light-duty trucks with a 

loaded vehicle weight rating of 3,750 

pounds or less and to heavy light-duty 

trucks with a loaded vehicle weight 

rating greater than 3,750 pounds and a 

GVWR less than 8,500 pounds. The CO2

equivalent emission standard for heavy 

light trucks includes noncommercial 

passenger trucks between 8,500 pounds 

and 10,000 pounds GVWR. The 

September 2005 CARB regulations set 

near-term standards (to be phased in 

between 2009 and 2012) and mid-term 

standards (to be phased in between 2013 

and 2016). After 2016, the CARB GHG 

emissions standards are fixed. 

Since CARB’s adoption of GHG 

standards, at least thirteen other states 

(including Maryland) have also elected 

to adopt CARB’s GHG standards (in 

conjunction with CA LEV standards) 

under the authority of section 177 of the 

CAA. In June 2009, EPA granted 

California’s request for a waiver of 

preemption for its GHG standards, 

which was published in the July 8, 2009 

Federal Register (74 FR 32744). Upon 

issuance of this waiver, California and 

other states that adopted California’s 

standards were permitted to proceed to 

implement California’s standards. 

In January 2012, CARB approved a 

new emissions-control program for 

model years 2017 through 2025. The 

program combines the control of smog, 

soot and global warming gases and 

requirements for greater numbers of 

ZEV vehicles into a single package of 

standards called LEV III, or Advanced 

Clean Cars. EPA has not yet granted a 

waiver for California’s standards for 

model year 2017 and beyond. 

5. Federal Greenhouse Gas Vehicle 

Standards 

EPA and the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

established a national program to 

improve fuel economy of and to reduce 

GHG from light-duty motor vehicles, via 

a final rule published in the May 7, 

2010 Federal Register (88 FR 25324). 

This rule affects new passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks, and medium duty 

passenger vehicles sold in model years 

2012 through 2016. Under this national 

program, adopted in coordination with 

California, automobile manufacturers 

face a single set of national emissions 

standards that will meet both Federal 

and California emissions requirements. 

California enacted several actions to 

allow manufacturers to meet a single set 

of standards under the national GHG 

rules, allowing for compliance with 

California requirements through 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

compliance with federal standards— 

resulting in a harmonized approach to 

emissions control. 

EPA and NHTSA issued a joint 

proposal in the December 1, 2011 

Federal Register (76 FR 74854) to 

further reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

and to improve fuel economy of new 

light- and medium-duty vehicles sold 

beyond the 2016 model year. This 

proposed rule would extend the 

National Program beyond 2016 by 

tightening GHG and CAFE standards 

between model years 2017 and 2025. 

B. Maryland’s Clean Car Program 

1. Overview—Maryland’s Clean Car 

Program Rules 

In order to address ambient air quality 

in the state, Maryland’s legislature 

adopted and the Governor signed the 

Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, 

purpose of which was to implement the 

California’s LEV program. This statute 

compelled the adoption by the 

Maryland Department of Environment 

of a final rule in November 2007 to 

implement California’s LEV standards. 

This rule established a new Maryland 

regulatory chapter COMAR 26.11.34, 

entitled ‘‘Low Emission Vehicle 

Program.’’ 

The regulation requires all 2011 and 

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

having a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or 

less that are sold as new cars or are 

transferred in Maryland to meet the 

applicable California emissions 

standards. For purposes of the Maryland 

Clean Car Program, transfer means to 

sell, import, deliver, purchase, lease, 

rent, acquire, or receive a motor vehicle 

for titling or registration in Maryland. 

The purpose of the program is to 

achieve two air quality objectives. The 

first is to reduce emissions of NOx and 

VOCs, which are ground-level ozone 

precursor pollutants. The LEV program 

reduces emissions in a similar manner 

to the Federal Tier 2 program by use of 

declining fleet average non-methane 

organic gas (NMOG) emission standards, 

applicable to each vehicle manufacturer 

each year. Separate fleet average 

standards are not established for NOx, 

carbon monoxide (CO), particulate 

matter (PM), or formaldehyde as these 

emissions are controlled as a co-benefit 

of the NMOG fleet average (fleet average 

values for these pollutants are set by the 

certification standards for each set of 

California prescribed certification 

standards.) These allowable sets of 

standards range from LEV (the least 

stringent standard set) to ZEVs (the most 

stringent standard 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 may comply 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. 

The second objective of the program 

is to reduce GHG emissions. To further 

both objectives, Maryland adopted 

California’s ZEV program requirements, 

which serve as a means to promote 

advanced technology vehicles that are 

cleaner than traditional gasoline- and 

diesel-powered vehicles. The GHG 

standards were to phase-in between 

model year 2009 and 2016; however, 

recently passed Federal GHG standards 

began to be phased-in beginning with 

model year 2012. The GHG program also 

uses a fleet average compliance method, 

similar in methodology to that of the 

NMOG fleet average for the LEV 

program. 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. 

California has reached an agreement 

with EPA to allow compliance with the 

Federal GHG standards as a compliance 

option for California’s standards, 

between 2012 and 2016. Both the LEV 

and GHG standards for model year 

2012–2016 light and medium duty 

vehicles are already in effect in 

Maryland. 

2. Maryland’s Clean Car Program SIP 

Revisions 

a. Maryland’s December 2007 SIP 

Revision 

Maryland proposed adoption of its 

new regulations .01 to .14 under a new 

chapter, COMAR 26.11.34, entitled 

‘‘Low Emission Vehicle Program’’ in the 

Maryland Register on August 31, 2007. 

The regulations were adopted on 

November 19, 2007, and became state 

effective on December 17, 2007. 

Maryland formally submitted a SIP 

revision for the Maryland Clean Car 

Program to EPA on December 20, 2007. 

This SIP revision contained Maryland’s 

incorporation of California’s LEV 

program regulations, which results in a 

declining fleet average standard (for 

each vehicle manufacturer) for both 

NMHC and GHGs, applicable to new 

model year 2011 and newer light-duty 

vehicles and trucks and medium-duty 

vehicles. Maryland’s regulations 

established initial NMOG credit 

balances for manufacturer credit 

account balances to reconcile the 

schedule of the Maryland program to 

that of the earlier California program 

and to provide parity for manufacturers 

between Maryland and California at the 

onset of the Maryland program. 

Maryland’s regulations in the 2007 SIP 

revision submittal also included ZEV 

program requirements for Maryland and 

established ZEV credit account balances 

to provide parity between California and 

Maryland with respect to the timing of 

Maryland’s ZEV program. Finally, the 

2007 SIP submittal contains general 

regulatory compliance provisions that 

extend California-defined rights to 

compliance with California’s standards 

in Maryland. 

b. Maryland’s November 2010 SIP 

Revision 

Subsequently, Maryland submitted a 

SIP revision on November 12, 2010 to 

submit updates made by the State to its 

LEV Program rule. Specifically, this SIP 

submittal includes changes made by 

Maryland to regulation .02 

Incorporation by Reference under 

COMAR 26.11.34. This regulatory 

revision was adopted by Maryland on 

October 16, 2009 and became effective 

in Maryland on November 16, 2009. The 

purpose of the SIP revision including 

this rule revision was to update 

Maryland’s incorporation by reference 

to be consistent with changes made by 

California to its LEV rules. Since the 

time that Maryland initially adopted 

California’s rules in 2007, California had 

updated its rules to streamline its 

evaporative emissions requirements, to 

amend its on-board diagnostics and 

emissions warranty provisions, to 

amend its in-use vehicle recall 

provisions, to amend its smog label 

requirements, and to revise its ZEV 

methodology and credit accounting 

system. Although the changes made by 

California (and the resulting changes 

made by Maryland to its incorporation 

of California’s rules by reference) are 

minimal, they are important for 

purposes of making sure Maryland’s 

rules are consistent with those of 

California, in compliance with the 

requirements for adoption of California 

standards by other states, pursuant to 

section 177 of the CAA. These changes 

serve primarily to achieve consistency 

between Maryland’s and California’s 

rules, for purposes of maintaining parity 

of Maryland’s rules with those of 

California. 

c. Maryland’s June 2011 SIP Revision 

Maryland again submitted a SIP 

revision submittal on June 22, 2011 to 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 50973 

submit updates made by the state to its 

LEV Program rule. Specifically, this SIP 

revision includes changes made by 

Maryland to regulation .02 

Incorporation by Reference under 

COMAR 26.11.34. This regulatory 

revision was adopted by Maryland on 

April 14, 2011 and became effective in 

Maryland on May 16, 2011. The purpose 

of the SIP revision including this rule 

revision was to update Maryland’s 

incorporation by reference to be 

consistent with changes made by 

California to its LEV rules. Since the 

time that Maryland initially adopted 

California’s rules in 2007, California had 

updated its rules to: improve on-board 

diagnostic and emission standards for 

testing vehicles; adopt standards for 

testing plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 

conversions; and to adopt the national 

GHG emissions standards framework 

agreement between the EPA, NHTSA, 

and CARB. Although the changes made 

by California (and the resulting changes 

made by Maryland to its incorporation 

of California’s rules by reference) are 

minimal, they are important for 

purposes of making sure Maryland’s 

rules are consistent with those of 

California, in compliance with the 

requirements for adoption of California 

standards by other states, per section 

177 of the CAA. These changes serve 

primarily to achieve consistency 

between Maryland’s and California’s 

rules, for purposes of maintaining parity 

of Maryland’s rules with those of 

California. 

II. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve three 

Maryland SIP revisions submitted to 

EPA adopting the Maryland Clean Car 

Program. Maryland adopted California’s 

LEV and ZEV programs, in addition to 

California’s GHG emissions standards 

for light-duty passenger vehicles and 

trucks and medium-duty vehicles. 

Maryland initially submitted the first of 

these three SIP revisions on December 

20, 2007. Maryland subsequently 

submitted the second of these three SIP 

revisions to EPA on November 12, 2010, 

to amend its 2007 SIP revision. 

Maryland then submitted a SIP revision 

on June 22, 2011, to amend its earlier 

SIP revisions. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

III. 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 to 

approve Maryland’s Clean Car Program 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 08, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20787 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–1078; FRL–9717–7] 

Revision to the South Coast Portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan, CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 

1318 Tracking System 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Supplemental Proposed Rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is supplementing our 

prior proposal to approve a sourcespecific State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision and requesting public comment 

on additional information we are adding 

to our docket to revise the South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

(District or SCAQMD) portion of the 

California SIP. This source-specific SIP 

revision is known as the CPV Sentinel 

Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking 

System (‘‘AB 1318 Tracking System’’). 

We are supplementing our proposed 

approval of this SIP revision to provide 

additional information and request 

comment on three issues: (1) the 

District’s quantification of the offsets it 

transferred to the AB 1318 Tracking 

System; (2) the District’s surplus 

adjustment of the offsets in the AB 1318 

Tracking System; and (3) which District 

Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) 

is appropriate for determining the base 

year to evaluate the availability of 

offsets from shutdown sources. 

DATES: Comments on this Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

must be submitted no later than 

September 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–1078, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: r9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 


ebenthall on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS