### 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-A PPROVED 

### I NDIANA 

### N ONREGULATORY AND 

### Q UASI 

### -R EGULATORY 

### P ROVISIONS

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).


### 75387 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 245 / Thursday, December 20, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

**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 findingthat 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.


### 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 numberwhere 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) ........................................ 200919.615 Fredericksburg Area (Spotsylvania and Stafford Counties and City of Fredericksburg) ........................................ 201512.933

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