44452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices 

1EPA issued conformity regulations to implement 

the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (69 FR 40004, July 1, 2004 

and 70 FR 24280, May 6, 2005, respectively). Those 

actions were not part of the final rule recently 

remanded to EPA by the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia in NRDC v. EPA, No. 08–1250 

(January 4, 2013), in which the Court remanded to 

EPA the implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS 

because it concluded that EPA must implement that 

NAAQS pursuant to the PM-specific 

implementation provisions of subpart 4 of Part D of 

Title I of the CAA, rather than solely under the 

general provisions of subpart 1. 

The adequate particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) MVEBs are 

provided in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—ON-ROAD MVEBS CONTAINED IN THE BALTIMORE, MD 1997 PM2.5 NONATTAINMENT AREA MAINTENANCE PLAN

FOR THE 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Year 

Motor vehicle emissions 

budget for PM2.5 on-road 

emissions 

(tons per year) 

Mobile vehicle emissions 

budget for NOX on-road 

emissions 

(tons per year) 

2017 ..................................................................................................................... 1,218.60 29,892.01 

2025 ..................................................................................................................... 1,051.39 21,594.96 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). EPA’s conformity rule requires 

that transportation plans, transportation 

improvement programs, and projects 

conform to SIPs and establishes the 

criteria and procedures for determining 

whether or not they do. Conformity to 

a SIP means that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the national ambient air quality 

standards. 

The criteria by which EPA determines 

whether a SIP’s MVEBs are adequate for 

conformity purposes are outlined in 40 

CFR 93.118(e)(4). EPA described the 

process for determining the adequacy of 

submitted SIP budgets in a July 1, 2004 

preamble starting at 69 FR 40038 and 

used the information in these resources 

in making this adequacy determination. 

The State of Maryland did not provide 

emission budgets for sulfur dioxide 

(SO2), volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs), or ammonia for the Baltimore 

Maintenance Plan because it concluded 

that emissions of these precursors from 

motor vehicles are not significant 

contributors to the Area’s PM2.5 air 

quality problem. The transportation 

conformity rule provision at 40 CFR 

93.102(b)(2)(v) indicates that conformity 

does not apply for these precursors, due 

to the lack of motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for these precursors and state’s 

conclusion that motor vehicle emissions 

of SO2, VOCs, and ammonia do not 

contribute significantly to the area’s 

PM2.5 nonattainment problem. This 

provision of the transportation 

conformity rule predates and was not 

disturbed by the January 4, 2013 

decision in the litigation on the PM2.5

implementation rule.1 EPA has 

preliminarily concluded that 

Maryland’s decision to not include 

budgets for SO2, VOCs, and ammonia is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

transportation conformity rule. That 

decision does not affect EPA’s adequacy 

finding for the submitted PM2.5 and NOX

MVEBs for the Baltimore Maintenance 

Plan. 

Please note that an adequacy review 

is separate from EPA’s completeness 

review, and should not be used to 

prejudge EPA’s ultimate approval action 

for the SIP. Even if EPA finds the 

budgets for the Baltimore Maintenance 

Plan adequate, the SIP could later be 

disapproved. The finding and the 

response to comments are available at 

EPA’s conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. 

Dated: July 11, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18046 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9914–60–OGC] 

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air 

Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent 

decree; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘CAA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), notice is hereby 

given of a proposed consent decree to 

address a lawsuit filed by the Center for 

Biological Diversity in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District 

of California: Center for Biological 

Diversity v. McCarthy, Civil Action No. 

4:13–cv–5142–SBA (N.D. Cal.). On 

November 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a 

complaint; on January 28, 2014, Plaintiff 

filed a first amended complaint; and on 

January 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed a second 

amended complaint. Plaintiff alleged 

that Gina McCarthy, in her official 

capacity as Administrator of the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’), failed to: (a) Perform a 

mandatory duty to find that certain 

states failed to submit nonattainment 

state implementation plans (‘‘SIPs’’) for 

named areas designated nonattainment 

for the 2006 fine particulate matter, or 

PM2.5, National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (‘‘NAAQS’’); and (b) take 

timely final action to approve or 

disapprove, in whole or in part, certain 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS nonattainment SIP 

submissions addressing nonattainment 

new source review from states for 

named areas. The proposed consent 

decree would establish deadlines for 

EPA to take some of these actions. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed consent decree must be 

received by September 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2014–0553, online at 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by email to oei.docket@

epa.gov; by mail to EPA Docket Center, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

or by hand delivery or courier to EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. Comments on 

a disk or CD–ROM should be formatted 

in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use 

of special characters and any form of 

encryption, and may be mailed to the 

mailing address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Bennett Bianco, Air and 

Radiation Law Office (2344A), Office of 

General Counsel, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 2014 / Notices 44453 

telephone: (202) 564–3298; fax number: 

(202) 564–5603; email address: 

bennett.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Consent Decree 

The proposed consent decree would 

resolve a lawsuit filed by the Center for 

Biological Diversity seeking to compel 

the Administrator to take actions under 

CAA sections 110(k)(1)–(4). Under the 

terms of the proposed consent decree, 

EPA would agree to sign a notice of final 

rulemaking to approve, disapprove, or 

approve in part and disapprove in part, 

certain nonattainment new source 

review plans no later than the date 

indicated for the following areas 

designated nonattainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS: (a) Los Angeles—South 

Coast, California area by April 15, 2015; 

(b) San Joaquin Valley, California area 

by September 1, 2014; and (c) Fairbanks, 

Alaska area by December 31, 2014. If 

either California or Alaska withdraws a 

listed submittal, then EPA’s obligation 

to take the required action is 

automatically terminated. 

Under the terms of the proposed 

consent decree, EPA will deliver notice 

of each action to the Office of the 

Federal Register for review and 

publication within 15 days of signature. 

In addition, the proposed consent 

decree outlines the procedure for the 

Plaintiff to request costs of litigation, 

including attorney fees. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

consent decree from persons who are 

not named as parties or intervenors to 

the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

consent decree if the comments disclose 

facts or considerations that indicate that 

such consent is inappropriate, 

improper, inadequate, or inconsistent 

with the requirements of the Act. Unless 

EPA or the Department of Justice 

determines that consent to this consent 

decree should be withdrawn, the terms 

of the consent decree will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed Consent 

Decree 

A. How can I get a copy of the consent 

decree? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by OGC–2014–0553) 

contains a copy of the proposed consent 

decree. The official public docket is 

available for public viewing at the 

Office of Environmental Information 

(OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566– 

1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through 

www.regulations.gov. You may use 

www.regulations.gov to submit or view 

public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at www.regulations.gov 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an email 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. 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. 

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web 

site to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, email address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (email) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system. If you send an email comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address is automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the official public 

docket, and made available in EPA’s 

electronic public docket. 

Dated: July 23, 2014. 

Lorie J. Schmidt, 

Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18048 Filed 7–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 

Ocean Transportation Intermediary 

License Applicants 

The Commission gives notice that the 

following applicants have filed an 

application for an Ocean Transportation 

Intermediary (OTI) license as a NonVessel-Operating Common Carrier 

(NVO) and/or Ocean Freight Forwarder 

(OFF) pursuant to section 19 of the 

Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 40101). 

Notice is also given of the filing of 

applications to amend an existing OTI 

license or the Qualifying Individual (QI) 

for a licensee. 

Interested persons may contact the 

Office of Ocean Transportation 

Intermediaries, Federal Maritime 

Commission, Washington, DC 20573, by 

telephone at (202) 523–5843 or by email 

at OTI@fmc.gov. 

Daisy Mae Concepcion Viva Taleon dba 

DMT Global Logistics (NVO & OFF), 

634 N. Poplar Street, Unit H, Orange, 

CA 92868, Officers: Daisy V. Taleon, 

Managing Member (QI), Catherine V. 

Guevara, Member, Application Type: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES