75386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this 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. 

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). 

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 February 19, 2013. 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 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxides, Ozone, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 10, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. The table in § 52.770 paragraph (e) 

is amended by adding an entry in 

alphabetical order for ‘‘Muncie 1997 8- 

hour ozone maintenance plan’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Muncie 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance 

plan.

..................... 12/20/12 [INSERT PAGE NUMBER 

WHERE THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].

Revision to motor vehicle emission budgets. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.777 is amended by 

redesignating the existing paragraph (cc) 

as paragraph (cc)(1) and by adding 

paragraph (cc)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 52.777 Control Strategy: Photochemical 

oxidants (hydrocarbons). 

* * * * * 

(cc) * * * 

(2) Approval—On August 17, 2012, 

Indiana submitted a request to revise the 

approved MOBILE6.2 motor vehicle 

emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Delaware County (Muncie), Indiana 

area. The budgets are being revised with 

budgets developed with the 

MOVES2010a model. The 2015 budgets 

for Delaware County, Indiana are 2.53 

tons per day volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and 7.02 tons per 

day nitrogen oxides (NOX). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–30439 Filed 12–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0444; FRL–9760–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area Revision to 

Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 75387 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects an 

error in the rule language of a final rule 

pertaining to EPA’s approval of the 

revised motor vehicle emissions budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Fredericksburg 8-Hour 

Ozone Maintenance Area 

(Fredericksburg Area). The previous 

rulemaking updated the 2009 and 2015 

MVEBs using EPA’s Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Simulator emissions model 

(MOVES2010a). 

DATES: This correcting amendment is 

effective December 20, 2012 and is 

applicable beginning November 28, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by 

email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65490), EPA 

published a final rulemaking action 

announcing approval of updated MVEBs 

for the Fredericksburg Area. The 

document inadvertently removed 

historical information in section 

52.2420(e) concerning the underlying 8- 

Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the 

Fredericksburg Area. The document also 

listed incorrect emissions budgets in 

section 52.2424(c) for the 

Fredericksburg Area. This action 

corrects these oversights. 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 

provides that, when an agency for good 

cause finds that notice and public 

procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a rule 

without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

have determined that there is good 

cause for making today’s rule final 

without prior proposal and opportunity 

for comment because we are merely 

correcting an incorrect citation in a 

previous action. Thus, notice and public 

procedure are unnecessary. We find that 

this constitutes good cause under 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). 

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is not a significant regulatory 

action and is therefore not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 Fed. Reg. 

28355 (May 22, 2001)). Because the 

agency has made a good cause finding 

that this action is not subject to noticeand-comment requirements under the 

Administrative Procedures Act or any 

other statute as indicated in the 

Supplementary Information section 

above, it is not subject to the regulatory 

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or 

to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(Pub. L. 104–4). In addition, this action 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments or impose a 

significant intergovernmental mandate, 

as described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This rule also 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor 

will it have substantial direct effects 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 governments, as specified by 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not 

economically significant. This technical 

correction action does not involve 

technical standards; thus the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. The rule also 

does not involve special consideration 

of environmental justice related issues 

as required by Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

issuing this rule, EPA has taken the 

necessary steps to eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity, minimize 

potential litigation, and provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct, as 

required by section 3 of Executive Order 

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). 

EPA has complied with Executive Order 

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1998) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the rule in accordance with the Attorney 

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for 

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings issued under the 

executive order. This rule does not 

impose an information collection 

burden under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

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. Section 808 allows 

the issuing agency to make a rule 

effective sooner than otherwise 

provided by the CRA if the agency 

makes a good cause finding that notice 

and public procedure is impracticable, 

unnecessary or contrary to the public 

interest. This determination must be 

supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 

808(2). As stated previously, EPA had 

made such a good cause finding, 

including the reasons therefore, and 

established an effective date of 

November 28, 2012. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule 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. This correction to 

40 CFR 52.2424 for the Commonwealth 

of Virginia is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(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. 

Accordingly, in 40 CFR part 52, the 

following correcting amendments are 

made: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by revising the entry for 

the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for 

the Fredericksburg Area to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) EPA-approved nonregulatory and 

quasi-regulatory material. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
75388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan for the Fredericksburg 

Area.

City of Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania County, and Stafford County.5/4/05 12/23/05, 70 FR 76165.

................................................ 9/26/11 12/20/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

Revised 2009 and 2015 

motor vehicle emission 

budgets for NOX. 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.2424 paragraph (c) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 52.2424 Motor vehicle emissions 

budgets. 

* * * * * 

(c) EPA approves the following 

revised 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the 

Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area submitted by the 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Quality (VADEQ) on September 26, 

2011: 

Applicable geographic area Year Tons per day 

(TPD) NOX

Fredericksburg Area (Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and City of Fredericksburg) ........................................ 2009 19.615 

Fredericksburg Area (Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and City of Fredericksburg) ........................................ 2015 12.933 

Dated: November 27, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–30103 Filed 12–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–0AR–2011–1004; FRL–9676–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Motor Vehicle Inspection 

and Maintenance Program—Deletion of 

Final Enhanced Inspection and 

Maintenance Emission Cutpoint 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision that 

was submitted by the State of Colorado 

on August 8, 2006. The August 8, 2006, 

revision updates Regulation Number 11, 

‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions Inspection 

Program,’’ by removing the light duty 

vehicle emission testing limits that went 

into effect on January 1, 2006, for 1996 

and newer model year vehicles. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective January 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–1004. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

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 either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Russo, Air Program, Mailcode 

8P–AR, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, 

telephone number (303) 312–6757, fax 

number (303) 312–6064, or email 

russo.rebecca@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

(i) The word Act or initials CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials NAAQS mean 

national ambient air quality standard. 

(iv) The initials ppb mean parts per 

billion. 

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(vi) The words State or Colorado 

mean the State of Colorado, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. What is the purpose of this action? 

III. What is the State’s process to submit SIP 

revisions to EPA? 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation of the State’s August 8, 

2006, Submittal 

V. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

Clean Air Act 

VI. Final Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 12, 2012, EPA published 

a proposed rule in the Federal Register 

in which we proposed approval of a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision that was submitted by the State 

of Colorado on August 8, 2006, and 

provided an opportunity for public 

comment through February 13, 2012 

(see 77 FR 1892). The SIP revision 

updates Colorado’s Regulation Number 

11, ‘‘Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Inspection Program,’’ by removing the 

light duty vehicle emission testing 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with