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

(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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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 (NOX), 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 NOX

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 Area 

and 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38789 

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 program 

consisting 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 emissions 

and 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 (CO2) emissionsfootprint curves, where each vehicle has 

a different CO2 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 CO2 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 NOX, 

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 these 

standards, 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 09JYR1

emcdonald 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 NOX 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 NOX 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 131 / Wednesday, July 9, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 38791 

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-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 

*******

26.11.34.02 with exception ............ Incorporation by Reference .......... 03/04/13 07/09/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].

Update to incorporate by reference California’s Advanced Clean Car Program 

rules, with exception of Title 13, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 5, § 2030. 

*******


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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). 

2Certain vehicles are excluded from the standard. 

3NHTSA 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 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES