### 38787 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles
stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ‘‘to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.’’ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include ‘‘identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.’’

We are issuing this final priority only
on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles
in Executive Order 13563. We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department’s programs and activities.

The benefits of the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects and Centers Program have been well established over the years, as projects similar to the one envisioned by the final priority have been completed successfully. The new RRTC will generate, disseminate, and promote the
use of new information that will improve outcomes for individuals with disabilities in the areas of community living and participation, employment,
and health and function.

Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**

**CONTACT**

.

Electronic Access to This Document:
The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register , in
text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is
available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Dated: July 3, 2014.

Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 2014–16085 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4000–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION** 
**AGENCY**

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0310; FRL–9913–30– Region 3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;**  **Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle Program** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision pertains to Maryland’s incorporation by reference of the most
recent amendments to California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program. 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. Maryland has adopted by reference California’s light and medium-duty vehicle emissions and fuel standards, and consistent with California, submits
amendments to these standards as
revisions to the State’s SIP. In this SIP revision, Maryland is updating its Low Emissions Vehicle Program regulation to adopt by reference California’s Advanced Clean Car Program. This action is being taken under the CAA.

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on September 8, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 8, 2014. 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–2014–0310 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–2014–0310, Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the 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.


### 38788 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 0310. 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 Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Emlyn Ve  ́ lez-Rosa (215) 814–2038, or by
email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On August 1, 2013, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP amending Maryland’s Low Emissions Vehicle Program regulation, COMAR 26.11.34, to adopt
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, also referred to as the CA LEV III program. The Maryland Low Emissions Vehicle Program requires 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’s vehicle standards.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Maryland’s Air Quality With Respect to

the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
B. Federal Vehicle Standards
C. California’s Vehicle Standards D. Maryland’s Low Emissions Vehicle

Program II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Final Action IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Maryland’s Air Quality With Respect
to the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NO X), and carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to apply controls on VOCs and NO X emission sources to achieve emission
reductions.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS, at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA finalized designations for areas across the country with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, which became effective on June 15, 2004. In this rulemaking action, EPA designated for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS three separate nonattainment areas containing eleven counties and the City of Baltimore in Maryland: (1) The Baltimore, Maryland moderate nonattainment area (hereafter the Baltimore Area), consisting of the counties of Ann Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard, and the City of Baltimore in Maryland; (2) the Washington, DC-MD-VA moderate nonattainment area (hereafter the Washington Area), whose Maryland’s portion consists of the counties of Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George’s; and(3) the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City, PA-NJ-MD-DE moderate nonattainment area (hereafter the Philadelphia Area), whose Maryland’s portion consists of Cecil County. See 40 CFR 81.321. Upon designation, these
1997 8-hour ozone moderate
nonattainment areas had an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2010.

Two of Maryland’s ozone
nonattainment areas have attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11739), EPA determined that the Washington Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2010 attainment date. On January 21, 2011 (76 FR 3840), EPA issued a 1-year attainment date extension (i.e., from June 15, 2010 to June 15 2011) for the Philadelphia Area. On March 26, 2012 (77 FR 17341), EPA determined that the Philadelphia Area attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2011 attainment date.

On March 11, 2011 (76 FR 13289), EPA issued a 1-year attainment date extension (i.e., from June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2011) for the Baltimore Area. On February 1, 2012 (77 FR 4901), EPA
made a determination that the Baltimore
Area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by its June 15, 2011 attainment date, based on quality assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data for 2008– 2010. As a result, in this same rulemaking action EPA reclassified the
Baltimore Area from moderate to serious
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436),
EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 ppm to 0.075 ppm. EPA also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard. On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA finalized designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, that became effective on July 20, 2012. The 2008 8-hour ozone designations included the same three nonattainment areas previously designated for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but with different classifications. The Washington Areaand the Philadelphia-WilmingtonAtlantic City Area were classified as marginal nonattainment and the
Baltimore Area was classified as
moderate nonattainment.

B. Federal Vehicle Standards

Vehicles sold in the United States are required by the CAA to be certified to
meet the Federal emission standards or
California’s emission standards. States are forbidden from adopting their own standards, but may adopt California’s
emission standards for which EPA has


### 38789 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

granted a waiver of preemption. Specifically, 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.
California emission standards have been traditionally more stringent than the EPA requirements, but their structure is similar to that of the Federal programs.

On February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698), EPA adopted the second tier of Federal motor vehicle standards (Federal Tier 2 standards) enacted under the CAA. The
Federal Tier 2 standards included tailpipe emissions standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and gasoline sulfur standards. The standards were phased-in between the 2004 and 2007 model years, except in states that had formally adopted
California’s emission standards in lieu
of the Federal standards.

On May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25324), EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an agency under the Department of Transportation (DOT), established a national programconsisting of new standards for lightduty motor vehicles to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and to improve fuel economy. This program affected new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016. EPA adopted the GHG emissions standards under the CAA, while NHTSA, as part of DOT, adopted standards related to fuel economy, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). Under this national program, adopted in coordination with California, automobile manufacturers face a single
set of national emissions standards to
meet both Federal and California emissions requirements.

On October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62624), EPA and NHTSA issued a joint final
rule to further reduce GHG emissionsand improve fuel economy for lightduty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond. This rule extended the previous national program beyond 2016 by tightening GHG for model years 2017 to
2025 and the CAFE standards between model years 2017 and 2021. The rule continued to apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles sold in the applicable model years.

EPA’s GHG standards are based on carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissionsfootprint curves, where each vehicle has
a different CO 2 emissions compliance target depending on its footprint value (related to the size of the vehicle). Generally, the larger the vehicle footprint, the higher the corresponding
vehicle CO 2 emissions target. As a result, the burden of compliance was
distributed across all vehicles and all manufacturers. The CAFE program required vehicle manufacturers to comply with the gas mileage, or fuel economy, standards set by the DOT.

On March 3, 2014, EPA signed a final rule adopting Tier 3 Motor Vehicle
Emission and Fuel Standards. The Federal Tier 3 program establishes more stringent Federal vehicle emissions
standards and lowers the sulfur content of gasoline for new cars in states subject to the Federal program, beginning in model year 2017. The Federal Tier 3 vehicle program will reduce both tailpipe and evaporative emissions from passenger cars, light-duty trucks, medium-duty passenger vehicles, and some heavy-duty vehicles. The gasoline
sulfur standard will enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards
and will make emissions control systems more effective. The tailpipe standards include different phase-in schedules that vary by vehicle class but generally phase in between model years
2017 and 2025. The Tier 3 standards are closely harmonized with California LEV
Tier III standards as well as with
Federal and California GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles.

C. California’s Vehicle Standards

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 program). These LEV standards were phased-in beginning in model year 1994 through model year 2003. In 1999, California adopted a second generation of CA LEV standards, known as CA LEV II. CA LEV II was phased-in beginning with model year 2004 through model year 2010. EPA granted a Federal preemption waiver for CA LEV II program on April 22, 2003 (68 FR 19811).

In December 2000, CARB modified the CA 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 CA 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 aligned each of California’s test procedures and label requirements with its Federal counterpart, in an effort to streamline
and harmonize the California and Federal Tier 2 programs and to reduce manufacturer testing burdens and increase in-use compliance. On July 30, 2010 (75 FR 44948), EPA published a Federal Register notice confirming that
CARB’s 2006 technical amendments were within-the-scope of existing waivers of preemption for the CA LEV II program.

The CA LEV II 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 NO X , 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 standards (the least stringent standard set) to Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards (the most stringent standard set). In between, the CA LEV II program establishes
various other standards: The 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 thesestandards, as long as their salesVerDate Mar<15>2010 16:31 Jul 08, 2014 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09JYR1.SGM 09JYR1emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES

### 38790 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

weighted, overall average of the various
standard sets meets the overall fleet average and ZEV requirements.

In January 2012, California approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025, called the Advanced Clean Cars Program, or the CA LEV III program. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and GHG and requirements for greater numbers of ZEV vehicles into a single package of standards. The regulations apply to light duty vehicles, light duty trucks, and medium duty passenger
vehicles. Under the Advanced Clean Cars Program, manufacturers can certify
vehicles to the standards before model year 2015. Beginning with model year 2020, all vehicles must be certified to
CA LEV III standards. The ZEV amendments add flexibility to California’s existing ZEV program for 2017 and earlier model years, and establish new sales and technology requirements starting with the 2018 model year. The CA LEV III amendments establish more stringent
criteria and GHG emission standards starting with the 2015 and 2017 model years, respectively. The California GHG
standards are almost identical in stringency and structure to the Federal GHG standards for model years from 2017 to 2025. Additionally, on December 2012, California adopted a ‘‘deemed to comply’’ regulation that
enables manufacturers to show compliance with California GHG standards by demonstrating compliance with Federal GHG standards. On June 9, 2013 (78 FR 2112), EPA granted a Federal preemption waiver for
California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. California’s LEV Program is
contained in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 13 ‘‘Motor Vehicles,’’ Division 3 ‘‘Air Resources
Board.’’

D. Maryland’s Low Emissions Vehicle Program

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, the purpose of which was to implement
California’s motor vehicle emission standards. This statute compelled the adoption by MDE on November 19, 2007 of a rule to implement CA LEV II
standards. This rule established Maryland regulatory chapter COMAR 26.11.34, entitled ‘‘Low Emission Vehicle Program’’ (also referred to as Maryland Clean Car Program), which became effective in Maryland on December 17, 2007. Since originally adopted, Maryland has revised its LEV program in 2009 and 2011 to reflect updates by California to the CA LEV II program. Maryland submitted these changes to EPA as SIP revisions, which EPA approved into Maryland’s SIP. See 78 FR 34911 (June 11, 2013).

The Maryland Clean Car Program has two objectives. The first is to reduce
emissions of NO X and VOCs, as precursors of ground level ozone, from new motor vehicles sold in Maryland. The second objective of the program is
to reduce GHG emissions from motor vehicles. The Maryland Clean Car Program requires all 2011 and newer model year passenger cars, light-duty 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.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

Since Maryland last adopted California’s vehicle standards in 2011, California has updated its rules to adopt its Advanced Clean Cars Program. As mentioned previously, on June 9, 2013 (78 FR 2112), EPA granted a Federal preemption waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Maryland adopted California’s updates to portions of CCR Title 13, Division 3 by amending COMAR 26.11.34.02 on February 6, 2013 (40:4 Md R. 347), as proposed on November 30, 2012 (39:24 Md. R. 1587–1590). These amendments became state-effective on March 4, 2013.

On August 1, 2013, Maryland
submitted as a SIP revision the stateadopted amendments to the Maryland LEV Program rule, with exception of CCR, Title 13, Division 3, Section 2030 ‘‘Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Natural Gas Retrofit Systems,’’ effective on February 13, 2010. The purpose of this SIP revision is for Maryland to update its incorporation by reference provisions, under COMAR 26.11.34.02, to adopt the CA LEV III program. This SIP revision will replace in its entirety the existing regulation COMAR 26.11.34.02 as approved in the SIP on June 11, 2013. See 78 FR 34911. A list of California’s regulations being incorporated by reference is included as part of Maryland’s notice of proposed action dated November 30, 2012 (39:24 Md. R. 1587–1590), which is included
in the State submittal and available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket

ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0310.

The proposed SIP revision includes Maryland’s revised Clean Car Program rules that adopt by reference California’s Advanced Clean Car Program approved by CARB in 2012. These amendments are important for purposes of making sure Maryland’s rules are consistent with those of California, and thus in compliance with Maryland’s requirement under section 177 of the

CAA.

As explained earlier, the California Advanced Clean Cars Program includes changes to CA LEV II, GHG, and ZEV standards, all of which have been adopted by Maryland. The California Advanced Clean Cars Program regulates criteria pollutants, and requires that all new 2017 and subsequent model year vehicles transferred (including titled and registered) in the State of Maryland
be certified to meet the new California
emission standards. The CA LEV III emission standards will be phased-in from 2017–2025. Maryland’s update to its Clean Car Program will result in a further reduction of ozone precursors
emissions of NO X and VOCs, as well as air toxic and GHG emissions beyond the State’s current, SIP-approved program.

III. Final Action

EPA is approving a SIP revision submitted by Maryland on August 1,
2013. The SIP revision amends the Maryland Low Emission Vehicle Program, in regulation COMAR 26.11.34.02, to incorporate by reference
California’s Advanced Clean Car Program. Maryland’s adoption of
California’s vehicle standards is authorized by section 177 of the CAA, and will ensure that Maryland’s Low Emission Vehicle Program continues to
be the same as California’s Low Emission Vehicle program. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of today’s Federal Register , EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the
SIP revision if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on September 8, 2014, without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 8, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting
must do so at this time.


### 38791 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

IV. 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 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).

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 September 8, 2014. 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 action. This rulemaking action to revise the Maryland Low Emissions Vehicle Program 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.

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

Dated: June 13, 2014. 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 revising the entry for
COMAR 26.11.34.02. to read as follows:

**§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.**

* * * * *

(c) * * *



### EPA-A PPROVED 

### R EGULATIONS 

### , T ECHNICAL 

### M EMORANDA



### , AND 

### STATUTES IN THE 

### M ARYLAND 

### 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**

******* 26.11.34.02 with exception ............ Incorporation by Reference .......... 03/04/13 07/09/14 [ **Insert Federal Reg**

**ister citation** ]. Update to incorporate by reference California’s Advanced Clean Car Programrules, with exception of Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 5, § 2030.

*******


### 38792 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

1 76 FR 3212; response to petitions for reconsideration, 78 FR 55138 (September 9, 2013). 2 Certain vehicles are excluded from the standard.

3 NHTSA estimates the new FMVSS No. 226 requirements will save 373 lives and prevent 476 serious injuries per year. The final rule adopted a phase-in of the new requirements, which started September 1, 2013.

4 77 FR 65352, October 26, 2012. * * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014–15886 Filed 7–8–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION**

**National Highway Traffic Safety**
**Administration**

**49 CFR Part 595**

**[Docket No. NHTSA–2014–0069]**

**RIN 2127–AL17**

**Make Inoperative Exemptions; Vehicle Modifications To Accommodate People**  **With Disabilities; Ejection Mitigation; Lamps, Reflective Devices, and**  **Associated Equipment**

**AGENCY :**  National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

**ACTION :**  Final rule, technical correction.

**SUMMARY :**  This final rule amends NHTSA regulations to include a new exemption relating to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard for ejection mitigation, and to correct a reference regarding the standard for lamps,
reflective devices and associated equipment. The exemptions facilitate the mobility of physically disabled drivers and passengers.

**DATES :**  Effective date: The date on
which this final rule amends the CFR is September 8, 2014.

Petitions for Reconsideration:
Petitions for reconsideration of this final
rule must be received at the address below by August 25, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  If you wish to petition for reconsideration of this rule, submit your petition to the following address so that it is received by NHTSA by the date above: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Washington, DC 20590. You should refer in your petition to the docket number of this document. The petition will be placed in the docket. Note that all submissions received will be posted without change to http:// www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Christopher J. Wiacek, NHTSA Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NVS–123 (telephone 202–366–4801), or Deirdre Fujita, NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel, NCC–112 (telephone 202–366–2992). The mailing address for these officials is: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In response to a petition for rulemaking from Bruno Independent Living Aids (Bruno), this final rule amends 49 CFR Part 595, Subpart C, ‘‘Make Inoperative Exemptions, Vehicle Modifications to Accommodate People With Disabilities,’’ to include a new exemption relating to FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection mitigation.’’ This document also corrects a reference in the part to FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment.’’ The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) preceding this final rule was published on October 26, 2012 (77 FR 65352).

Background

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) (‘‘Safety Act’’) and NHTSA’s regulations require vehicle manufacturers to certify that their vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) ( see 49 U.S.C. 30112; 49 CFR part 567) at the time of manufacture. A vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business, except as indicated below, may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed in or on a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS ( see 49 U.S.C. 30122). NHTSA has the authority to issue regulations that exempt regulated entities from the ‘‘make inoperative’’ provision (49 U.S.C. 30122(c)). The agency has used that authority to promulgate 49 CFR part 595, ‘‘Make Inoperative Exemptions.’’

49 CFR part 595, subpart C, sets forth exemptions from the make inoperative provision to permit, under limited circumstances, vehicle modifications that take the vehicles out of compliance
with certain FMVSSs when the vehicles are modified to be used by persons with
disabilities after the first retail sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale. The regulation was promulgated
to facilitate the modification of motor vehicles so that persons with disabilities
can drive or ride in them. The regulation involves information and disclosure requirements and limits the extent of modifications that may be made. Details of the regulation are described in the October 26, 2012

NPRM.

FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection Mitigation’’

On January 19, 2011, 1 the agency published a final rule establishing FMVSS No. 226, ‘‘Ejection Mitigation,’’ to reduce the partial and complete ejection of vehicle occupants through side windows in crashes, particularly rollover crashes. The standard applies to passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less. 2

To assess compliance with FMVSS No. 226, an impactor is propelled from
inside a test vehicle toward the windows. The ejection mitigation safety system is required to prevent the impactor from moving more than a specified distance beyond the plane of a window. In the test, the
countermeasure must retain the linear travel of the impactor such that the impactor must not travel 100 millimeters beyond the location of the inside surface of the vehicle glazing. This displacement limit serves to control the size of any gaps forming between the countermeasure (e.g., the ejection mitigation side curtain air bag) and the window opening, thus reducing the potential for both partial and complete ejection of an occupant.

The agency believes that vehicle manufacturers will meet the standard by means of side curtain air bag technology, and possibly supplement the technology with advanced glazing. Existing side impact air bag curtains (installed pursuant to FMVSS No. 214, ‘‘Side impact protection’’) will be made larger so that they cover more of the window opening, made more robust to remain inflated longer, and made to deploy in both side impacts and in rollovers using sensor technology. 3

FMVSS No. 226 is a new regulation and currently, 49 CFR Part 595 does not provide for an exemption for vehicles
that are modified to accommodate people with disabilities.

NPRM

On October 26, 2012, NHTSA published an NPRM 4 in the Federal Register responding to a petition for rulemaking from Bruno requesting NHTSA to amend § 595.7 to include an exemption from the requirements of FMVSS No. 226. The NPRM granted the petition and proposed to amend the regulation.

Bruno manufactures a product line it calls ‘‘Turning Automotive Seating (TAS),’’ which replaces the seat installed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). In its petition, Bruno states that the purpose of TAS is