Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39365 

understanding this rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Directive 023–01 and Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1D, which guide the 

Coast Guard in complying with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves the 

establishment of a safety zone 

surrounding a fireworks display on 

Milwaukee Harbor in Lake Michigan. It 

is categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L[60(a)] of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 01. A 

Record of Environmental Consideration 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0724 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0724 Safety Zone; Discovery 

World Fireworks, Milwaukee Harbor, 

Milwaukee WI. 

(a) Location. All navigable waters 

within a 100-yard radius of 43°01.980′ 

N, 087°53.580 W. 

(b) Effective and enforcement period. 

This rule is effective and will be 

enforced from 9 p.m. through 11 p.m. on 

August 11, 2018. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a 

designated on-scene representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan 

is any Coast Guard commissioned, 

warrant or petty officer who has been 

designated by the Captain of the Port 

Lake Michigan to act on his or her 

behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the Captain of the Port Lake 

Michigan or an on-scene representative 

to obtain permission to do so. The 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an 

on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel 

operators given permission to enter or 

operate in the safety zone must comply 

with all directions given to them by the 

Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an 

on-scene representative. 

Dated: July 24, 2018. 

Thomas J. Stuhlreyer, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2018–17069 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396; FRL–9981– 

96—Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; 2011 Base Year Inventory 

for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for the 

Baltimore, Maryland Nonattainment 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39366 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1On October 1, 2015, EPA strengthened the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292 

(October 16, 2015). This rulemaking addresses the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and does not address 

the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision for 

the 2011 base year inventory for the 

Baltimore, Maryland moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standard (NAAQS). The State of 

Maryland submitted the emission 

inventory through the Maryland 

Department of the Environment (MDE) 

to meet the nonattainment requirements 

for moderate ozone nonattainment areas 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA 

is approving the 2011 base year 

emissions inventory for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS as a revision to the 

Maryland state implementation plan 

(SIP) in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

at rehn.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

revised ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm, 

averaged over eight hours. 62 FR 38855. 

This 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 

determined to be more protective of 

public health than the previous 1979 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS. See 44 FR 8202 

(February 8, 1979). In 2008, EPA revised 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 to 

0.075 ppm. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 

2008).1

On May 21, 2012, the Baltimore, 

Maryland area was designated as 

moderate nonattainment for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088. The 

designation of the Baltimore, Maryland 

area as moderate nonattainment was 

effective July 20, 2012. The Baltimore, 

Maryland nonattainment area is 

comprised of Anne Arundel County, 

Baltimore County, Baltimore City, 

Carroll County, Harford County, and 

Howard County. Under section 172(c)(3) 

of the CAA, Maryland is required to 

submit a comprehensive, accurate, and 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutants in its moderate 

nonattainment area. 

On October 3, 2017 (82 FR 46010 and 

82 FR 45997), EPA simultaneously 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) and a direct final rule 

(DFR) for the State of Maryland 

approving the SIP revision. EPA 

received adverse comments on the 

rulemaking and withdrew the DFR prior 

to the effective date of December 4, 

2017. In this final rulemaking, EPA is 

responding to the comments submitted 

on the proposed revision to the 

Maryland SIP and is approving 

Maryland’s 2011 base year emissions 

inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

Under CAA section 172(c)(3), states 

are required to submit a comprehensive, 

accurate, and current account of actual 

emissions from all sources (point, 

nonpoint, nonroad, and onroad) in the 

nonattainment area. CAA section 

182(a)(1) and (b) requires that areas 

designated as nonattainment and 

classified as moderate submit an 

inventory of all sources of ozone 

precursors no later than 2 years after the 

effective date of designation. 

On December 30, 2016, MDE 

submitted a formal revision (SIP #16– 

16) to its SIP. The SIP revision consists 

of the 2011 base year inventory for the 

Baltimore, Maryland nonattainment area 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

accordance with EPA’s requirements for 

ozone SIP planning, ‘‘Implementation of 

the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone: State 

Implementation Plan Requirements,’’ 

MDE selected 2011 for its base year 

emissions inventory. See 80 FR 12263 

(March 6, 2015). MDE’s 2011 base year 

inventory includes emissions estimates 

covering the general source categories of 

stationary point, area (nonpoint), quasipoint, nonroad mobile, onroad mobile, 

and Marine-Air-Rail (M–A–R). 

EPA reviewed Maryland’s 2011 base 

year emission inventory’s results, 

procedures, and methodologies for the 

Baltimore, Maryland moderate 

nonattainment area and found them to 

meet the applicable requirements for 

approval under sections 110, 172(c)(3) 

and 182(a)(1) and (b) of the CAA. 

Other specific requirements of 

Maryland’s 2011 base year emissions 

inventory for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the rationale for EPA’s 

proposed action are explained in the 

prior direct final rule (DFR) and its 

accompanying NPR and will not be 

restated here. EPA received public 

comments on the NPR that will be 

addressed in section III of this 

rulemaking. 

III. Response to Comments 

During the comment period, EPA 

received several anonymous comments 

on this rulemaking. EPA is responding 

to the comments submitted specific to 

this action on the proposed revision to 

the Maryland SIP. All other comments 

received were not specific to this action 

and thus are not addressed here. 

Comment 1: The Commenter claims 

Maryland assumed Stage II controls 

were in effect even though the State has 

‘‘exercised enforcement discretion for 

new and existing sources effectively 

eliminating all reductions from any 

[Stage II] controls.’’ Commenter 

provides a memorandum from MDE’s 

Air & Radiation Management 

Administration (ARMA) titled ‘‘Stage II 

Vapor Recovery Systems—Enforcement 

Discretion Policy (March 20, 2014).’’ 

Response 1: EPA notes that 

Maryland’s 2011 base year emissions 

inventory analysis for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS was performed for calendar 

year 2011 using 2011 emissions data. 

Maryland continued to implement and 

enforce the Stage II program prior to 

issuance of MDE’s enforcement policy 

on March 6, 2014, suspending state 

enforcement of the program from that 

time forward. Maryland intended to 

subsequently repeal the Stage II rule and 

to submit to EPA a SIP revision to 

remove the program from the SIP. 

Maryland submitted a SIP revision to 

EPA to remove the Stage II program 

from the SIP on August 28, 2017. 

However, the Stage II program was in 

operation and was being enforced in 

2011. Therefore, EPA believes Maryland 

correctly estimated its 2011 emission 

inventory to include the Stage II 

program as an implemented, enforceable 

emission control measure. Therefore, 

EPA finds Maryland correctly estimated 

its emissions inventory to reflect Stage 

II as a control measure in place in the 

2011 base year inventory period. 

Comment 2: Commenter claims that 

the emissions calculations for ‘‘Open 

Burning—Land Clearing’’ uses an ozone 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39367 

2See EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396–0005, page 109. 

3See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2017-07/documents/ei_guidance_may_2017_final_

rev.pdf, page 72. 

4See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 

2015-08/documents/iii06fin.pdf, page 6.3–9. 

5See https://www.epa.gov/air-emissionsinventories/air-emissions-inventory-improvementprogram-eiip for all EIIP technical reports. 

6See Maryland’s I/M annual report for calendar 

year 2011, dated July 2012, as submitted to EPA 

from MDE via letter to Brian Rehn from Marcia 

Ways, dated July 15, 2012. 

7See Maryland’s July 2012 IM Annual Report to 

EPA, dated July 2012, pages 4–17 for further details 

on MD’s motorist compliance rate, based on actual 

2011 I/M program data. 8See EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0396–0005, page 261. 

season of only 92 days, which is not 

even half of the full ozone season. 

Response 2: Maryland chose to use 

the peak ozone period of June to August 

(92 days) for the ‘‘Open Burning—Land 

Clearing’’ emissions calculations as 

their ozone season.2 Under EPA’s 

‘‘Emissions Inventory Guidance for 

Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

Regional Haze Regulations (July 2017),’’ 

the state shall ‘‘select the representative 

months and work week days to include 

in the calculation of the ozone season 

day emissions. The temporal basis for 

these emissions should be 

representative of the conditions leading 

to nonattainment, as recommended by 

the state.’’ 3 EPA finds that Maryland’s 

calculations in the 2016 SIP submittal 

comply with the current guidance in 

choosing to select June to August as the 

ozone season for the ‘‘Open Burning— 

Land Clearing’’ emissions calculations, 

as Maryland states these months are 

typically peak ozone season. 

Comment 3: Maryland assumed that 

‘‘commercial and industrial sources 

only operated 6 days a week instead of 

7.’’ Commenter notes that ‘‘nothing in 

Maryland prevents businesses from 

operating 7 days a week and so 

Maryland should have used 7 days a 

week.’’ 

Response 3: While Commenter is not 

specific as to which commercial and 

industrial sources are of concern, EPA’s 

Emission Inventory Improvement 

Program (EIIP) guidance (May 2001) 

provides flexibility in the operation 

days. For example, the guidance for 

solvent cleaning operations states, 

‘‘Daily variations may apply for some of 

the industries. Some industries operate 

seven days per week, others only five 

days. Some industries are likely to 

operate two or three shifts per day, 

others may only have one.’’ Therefore, 

‘‘the default value of uniform activity 

through the year is six days per week.’’ 4

EPA finds that Maryland performed the 

calculations in accordance with the EIIP 

guidance.5

Comment 4: Commenter claims 

Maryland’s inspection and maintenance 

(I/M) program is improperly represented 

in the emission modeling parameters 

selected by Maryland in the Motor 

Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) 

modeling used to estimate the highway 

mobile source emissions portion of the 

emission inventory, which are used to 

calculate emissions benefits from the 

I/M program. The commenter claims 

MOVES parameters for I/M program 

coverage incorrectly included an I/M 

program motorist compliance rate of 

over 96% when the state is known to 

‘‘have a large number of (vehicle) 

failures that never return to get 

rechecked.’’ Additionally, the 

commenter states that ‘‘Maryland allows 

for almost 6 months of extensions after 

first testing and finding a problem that 

has to be fixed. This means that if a car 

is failing in the second half of the year 

it is possible to have a violating vehicle 

for the rest of the year meaning 

compliance is not achieved.’’ 

Commenter would like EPA to require 

Maryland to use actual I/M data 

collected by the Maryland program to be 

used to set the I/M program parameters 

of the MOVES model instead of MOVES 

default parameters as this would reduce 

the reductions attributed to the I/M 

program and change the area’s overall 

emissions inventory. 

Response 4: The I/M program motorist 

compliance rate is represented by the 

number of complying vehicles (i.e., 

vehicles with a confirmed final I/M test 

outcome, either passing the test or 

receiving a waiver from doing so) 

divided by the number of vehicles 

subject to testing in the area × 100. 

Maryland collects statistics for its 

Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program 

(VEIP) on an ongoing basis, and per a 

requirement of the federal requirements 

for I/M programs, annually reports 

program summary data to EPA for the 

prior calendar year. For purposes of the 

2011 base year inventory, the relevant 

I/M annual report from Maryland to 

EPA was submitted on August 15, 2012, 

representing calendar year 2011.6 For 

2011, MDE reported that a total of 

1,562,895 vehicles were tested under 

the VEIP program. Of these, 1,424,557 

vehicles initially passed and 138,338 

vehicles failed the VEIP test. Of the 

initial failures, 14,442 ultimately 

received a test ‘‘waiver’’ outcome after 

spending money for repairs up to a limit 

established by the VEIP program (but 

still not passing a test). Therefore, a total 

of 1,438,99 out of 1,562,895 vehicles 

received some form of final VEIP test 

outcome (either a passing test or a 

waiver) by the end of calendar year 

2011, for a 92% compliance rate. 

However, Maryland calculated an 

overall 97% I/M program motorist 

compliance rate for the 2011 calendar 

year, when taking into account vehicles 

that received legally granted compliance 

extensions, but received a final outcome 

by the following July.7 Maryland’s 2011 

I/M report tracks outcomes for these 

delayed compliance vehicles from the 

end of 2011 through July 2012 and 

factors them into an adjusted 

compliance rate for calendar year 2011. 

In doing so, MDE has attempted to 

account for many of the initially failing 

vehicles in the 2011 calendar year that 

did not receive a final I/M test outcome 

by the end of 2011. Taking into account 

these late complying vehicles, as well as 

vehicles that were identified as having 

been scrapped or relocated outside the 

I/M program area, MDE’s calculated 

motorist compliance rate reached 96%, 

very near to the compliance rate 

assumed by MDE in the MOVES 

modeling performed to support the 2011 

base year emission inventory.8 EPA 

finds that the MDE made a reasonable 

estimate of I/M program motorist 

compliance rate for its base year 

inventory. Based on our review of statereported 2011 I/M program data, EPA 

disagrees with the Commenter that the 

I/M program motorist compliance rate 

assumed by MDE for the base year 

inventory was not achieved in practice. 

See 40 CFR part 51.351(12). 

Comment 5: Commenter requests that 

EPA fully evaluate all calculations to 

ensure Maryland has used the proper 

methodologies and assumptions. 

Response 5: EPA has reviewed the 

stationary point source, area source, 

highway mobile, and nonroad mobile 

source sector emissions estimates for the 

2011 base year inventory and is satisfied 

that MDE has followed the appropriate 

guidelines and used the latest available 

information to support its base year 

inventory estimates. EPA has reviewed 

the 2011 base year inventory for the 

Baltimore, Maryland moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS and finds that Maryland 

has followed the guidance for a base 

year inventory submission. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving the Maryland SIP 

revision which includes the 2011 base 

year inventory for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore, 

Maryland moderate nonattainment area 

because the inventory was prepared in 

accordance with requirements in 

sections 110, 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1) and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
39368 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) of the CAA and its implementing 

regulations including 40 CFR 51.915. 

After receipt of adverse public 

comment on our prior direct final rule, 

EPA published an action to withdrawal 

the direct final rule (82 FR 66611, 

November 22, 2017). This withdrawal 

occurred prior to the effective date for 

the direct final action, preventing 40 

CFR 52.1075(r) from being added to the 

SIP through the direct final action. With 

this final rule, EPA is now adding 40 

CFR 52.1075(r) to Maryland’s SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 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 October 9, 2018. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. 

This action approving Maryland’s 

2011 base year inventory for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS for the Baltimore, 

Maryland moderate nonattainment area 

may not be challenged later in 

proceedings to enforce its requirements. 

(See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 26, 2018. 

Cecil Rodrigues, 

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 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

‘‘2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory 

for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ at the 

end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MATERIAL

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

2011 Base Year Emissions Inventory for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard.

Baltimore, Maryland 2008 Ozone 

Moderate Nonattainment Area.

12/30/2016 8/9/2018 [Insert Federal Register 

citation].

See § 52.1075(r). 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 154 / Thursday, August 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 39369 

■ 3. Section 52.1075 is amended by 

adding paragraph (r) to read as follows: 

§ 52.1075 Base year emissions inventory. 

* * * * * 

(r) EPA approves as a revision to the 

Maryland state implementation plan the 

2011 base year emissions inventory for 

the Baltimore, Maryland moderate 

nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards submitted by the Maryland 

Department of the Environment on 

December 30, 2016. The 2011 base year 

emissions inventory includes emissions 

estimates that cover the general source 

categories of stationary point, quasipoint, area (nonpoint), nonroad mobile, 

onroad mobile, and Marine-Air-Rail (M– 

A–R). The inventory includes actual 

annual emissions and typical summer 

day emissions for the months of May 

through September for the ozone 

precursors, VOC and NOX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–16992 Filed 8–8–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0918; FRL–9981–95– 

OAR] 

Air Quality Designations for the 2012 

Primary Annual Fine Particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for Areas in Florida 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is establishing initial air 

quality designations for the 2012 

primary annual fine particle (PM2.5) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for the remaining 

undesignated areas in the state of 

Florida. When the EPA designated the 

majority of areas in the country for this 

NAAQS in December 2014 and March 

2015, the EPA deferred initial area 

designations for certain areas, including 

all of the Florida, because the EPA 

could not determine using available 

data whether the areas were meeting or 

not meeting the NAAQS. In August 

2016, the EPA designated most of the 

state of Florida (62 of 67 counties). 

Following the August 2016 designation 

action, two areas (five counties) in 

Florida remained undesignated. The 

EPA could not determine at that time 

whether the areas were meeting or not 

meeting the NAAQS. Florida has now 

submitted complete, quality-assured, 

and certified air quality monitoring data 

for the period 2015–2017 for the areas 

identified in this action. Based on these 

data, the EPA is designating the 

remaining five counties as 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 

primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 10, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0918. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

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 the docket or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, William 

Jefferson Clinton West Building, Room 

3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC. The 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 Air Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

In addition, the EPA has established 

a website for the rulemakings to initially 

designate areas for the 2012 primary 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS at: https://

www.epa.gov/particle-pollutiondesignations. This website includes the 

EPA’s final PM2.5 designations actions, 

as well as state and tribal initial 

recommendation letters, the EPA’s 

modification letters, technical support 

documents, responses to comments and 

other related technical information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general questions concerning this 

action, please contact: Carla Oldham, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Air Quality Policy 

Division, C539–04, Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541– 

3347, email at oldham.carla@epa.gov. 

The Region 4 contact is Madolyn 

Sanchez, U.S. EPA, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, 61 

Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 

30303–8960, telephone (404) 562–9644, 

email at sanchez.madolyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On December 14, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated a revised primary annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS to provide increased 

protection of public health from fine 

particle pollution (78 FR 3086; January 

15, 2013). In that action, the EPA 

strengthened the primary annual PM2.5

standard from 15.0 micrograms per 

cubic meter (mg/m3) to 12.0 mg/m3, 

which is attained when the 3-year 

average of the annual arithmetic means 

does not exceed 12.0 mg/m3. Section 

107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 

U.S.C. 7407(d), governs the process for 

initial area designations after the EPA 

establishes a new or revised NAAQS. 

Under CAA section 107(d), each 

governor is required to, and each tribal 

leader may, if they so choose, 

recommend air quality designations to 

the EPA by a date that cannot be later 

than 1 year after the promulgation of a 

new or revised NAAQS. The EPA 

considers these recommendations as 

part of its duty to promulgate the area 

designations and boundaries for the new 

or revised NAAQS. If, after careful 

consideration of these 

recommendations, the EPA believes that 

it is necessary to modify a state’s 

recommendation and intends to 

promulgate a designation different from 

a state’s recommendation, the EPA must 

notify the state at least 120 days prior 

to promulgating the final designation 

and the EPA must provide the state an 

opportunity to demonstrate why any 

proposed modification is inappropriate. 

These modifications may relate either to 

an area’s designation or to its 

boundaries. 

On December 18, 2014, the 

Administrator of the EPA signed a final 

action promulgating initial designations 

for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for the 

majority of the United States, including 

areas of Indian country (80 FR 2206 FR; 

January 15, 2015). In that action, the 

EPA also deferred initial area 

designations for certain areas where 

available data, including air quality 

monitoring data, were insufficient to 

determine whether the area met or did 

not meet the NAAQS, but where 

forthcoming data were likely to result in 

complete and valid air quality data 

sufficient to determine whether these 

areas meet the NAAQS. Accordingly, 

the EPA stated that it would use the 

additional time available as provided 

under section 107(d)(1)(B) of the CAA to 

assess relevant information and 

subsequently promulgate initial 

designations for the identified areas 

through a separate rulemaking action or 

actions. The deferred areas included the 

entire state of Tennessee, except three 

counties in the Chattanooga area; 

several areas in the state of Georgia, 

including two neighboring counties in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES