80 FR 40917 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Low Emissions Vehicle Program Revisions
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 134 (July 14, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 134 (July 14, 2015)
| Page Range | 40917-40922 | |
| FR Document | 2015-17060 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 134 (Tuesday, July 14, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 40917-40922] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-17060] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0241; FRL-9930-35-Region 3] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Low Emissions Vehicle Program Revisions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve two revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides authority allowing California to adopt its own motor vehicle emissions [[Page 40918]] standards for newly manufactured vehicles, in lieu of federal vehicle standards. The CAA also allows other states to adopt California's vehicle standards, as long as they are identical to California's standards. Maryland's recent SIP submittals serve to amend Maryland's Clean Car Program to incorporate updates that California has made to its Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) program rules. Maryland adopted California's emission standards applicable to newly manufactured light and medium-duty vehicles in 2007, and EPA approved Maryland's Clean Car Program in prior rulemakings. However, since then California revised its LEV program regulations on several occasions, and Maryland subsequently amended its own rules to be consistent with those of California. Since the Clean Car Program is part of the SIP, Maryland then submits these amendments as a SIP revision. Maryland submitted such SIP revision requests in July 2014 and again in April 2015 to update its SIP to be consistent with California's latest LEV program rules. EPA's action to approve Maryland's most recent Clean Car Program SIP revisions is being taken under the CAA. DATES: This rule is effective on September 14, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 13, 2015. 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-2015-0241 by one of the following methods: A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. B. Email: [email protected]. C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2015-0241, 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 previously-listed 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. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR- 2015-0241. 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: Brian Rehn, (215) 814-2176, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Maryland originally adopted a Low Emissions Vehicle Program in 2007 under Regulation .02 of COMAR 26.11.34 Low Emission Vehicles. Since then, Maryland updated its program rule on several occasions (in 2009 and 2011), to incorporate changes made by California to its own LEV program rule. Maryland originally submitted its Clean Car Program to EPA for inclusion in the SIP in December 2007 (Revision #07-16), with subsequent revisions in November 2010 (Revision #10-08) and again in June 2011 (Revision #11-05), to reflect Maryland regulatory updates made in 2009 and 2011. EPA approved Maryland's original Clean Car SIP submittal (and the November 2010 and June 2011 revisions) in a rulemaking action published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 34911). Maryland again submitted a revised SIP submittal in August 2013 (Revision #13-02), to incorporate regulatory changes made in 2012 to its Clean Car Program rule. EPA approved that SIP revision in a final rulemaking action published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2013 (79 FR 38787). On July 28, 2014, Maryland submitted a revision for the SIP (Revision #14-01) to again amend its Clean Car Program SIP to include regulatory updates made in 2014 to ensure consistency with California's LEV rules. Maryland later submitted another revision for the SIP (Revision #15-02) on April 13, 2015 to adopt additional regulatory amendments made in 2015. It is these two most recent SIP revisions that are the subject of this rulemaking. Table of Contents I. Background A. Maryland's Air Quality With Respect to the Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Ozone B. Federal Vehicle Emission Standards C. California's Low Emission Vehicle Standards D. Maryland's Low Emissions Vehicle Program II. Summary of SIP Revisions III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background A. Maryland's Air Quality With Respect to the Federal National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Ozone The CAA, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set NAAQS for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. EPA establishes NAAQS for six principal pollutants, or ``criteria'' pollutants, which include: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide, fine particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide. The CAA establishes two types of NAAQS. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of ``sensitive'' populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare, including protection against decreased [[Page 40919]] visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. The CAA also requires EPA to periodically review the standards to ensure that they provide adequate health and environmental protection, and to update those standards as necessary. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions between ozone precursor pollutants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX ) in the presence of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient air, the CAA directs areas designated as nonattainment to apply controls on VOC and NOX emission sources to reduce the formation of ozone. Although EPA has revised the ozone NAAQS several times since the CAA was reauthorized in 1990, Maryland has historically had three areas designated as nonattainment under each successive ozone NAAQS. These include portions of the Baltimore metropolitan area, the Maryland portion of the Washington, DC metropolitan area, and the Maryland portion of the Philadelphia metropolitan area. Most recently, EPA revised the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436). On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA finalized designations for this 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including as nonattainment the same three Maryland areas. B. Federal Vehicle Emission Standards Vehicles sold in the United States are required by the CAA to be certified to meet either Federal motor vehicle emission standards or California emission standards. States other than California are forbidden from adopting their own standards, but may elect to adopt California emission standards for which EPA has 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 vehicle engines), however, EPA may waive that prohibition for any state that adopted its own standards prior to March 30, 1966. As California was the only state to do so, California has authority to adopt its own 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,'' after which time EPA may then grant a waiver of preemption from Federal standards for California's standards. Section 177 of the CAA authorizes other states to adopt California's standards in lieu of Federal vehicle standards, provided the state does so with at least two model years lead time prior to the effective date of its program and EPA has issued a waiver of preemption to California for such standards. EPA has adopted several iterations, or ``tiers,'' of federal emissions standards since the CAA was reauthorized in 1990. When Maryland first adopted its Clean Car Program in 2007, the federal standards in effect were Tier 2 standards that were adopted by EPA on February 10, 2000 (65 FR 6698) and were implemented beginning with 2004 model year federally certified vehicles. These Federal Tier 2 standards set tailpipe emissions standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks and also limited gasoline sulfur levels. EPA later finalized Tier 3 Federal vehicle and fuel standards on April 28, 2014 (79 FR 23414). The Federal Tier 3 program set more stringent Federal vehicle emissions standards and further limited allowable sulfur content of gasoline for new cars, beginning in 2017. EPA attempted to closely harmonize the Tier 3 standards with California's most current Low Emissions Vehicle Program. On May 7, 2010 (75 FR 25324), EPA and the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) jointly established a national program consisting of new standards for light-duty motor vehicles to reduce greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and to improve fuel economy. This program affected new passenger cars, light trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles sold in model years 2012 through 2016. On October 15, 2012 (77 FR 62624), EPA and NHTSA issued another joint rule to further tighten GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025. The Federal GHG standards were harmonized with similar GHG standards set by California, to ensure that automobile manufacturers would face a single set of national emissions standards to meet both Federal and California emissions requirements. C. California's Low Emission 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 LEV program standards were phased-in beginning in model year 1994 through model year 2003. In 1999, California adopted a second generation of LEV standards, known as LEV II, which were phased-in beginning 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). California's 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, 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). California's 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 sales- 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 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 California's 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 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 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 [[Page 40920]] 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 III program rules are codified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), under Division 3. D. Maryland's Low Emissions Vehicle Program Maryland's legislature adopted and the Governor signed into law the Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, establishing legal authority compelling Maryland to adopt California's LEV standards. Maryland adopted its ``Low Emission Vehicle Program,'' codified at COMAR 26.11.34 in 2007. Since then, Maryland has revised its program rules a number of times to ensure consistency with California's LEV program. As discussed in the Supplemental Information section, Maryland submitted revisions in 2009 and 2011, which EPA approved (along with the original 2007 Clean Car revision) on June 11, 2013 (78 FR 34911). Since then, Maryland amended its program in 2013 and submitted another SIP revision to EPA in August 2013, which EPA approved on July 9, 2014 (79 FR 38787). 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 program requires 2011 and newer 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 as new cars or transferred in Maryland to meet the applicable California emissions standards. For purposes of the 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 Revisions On July 28, 2014, Maryland submitted a formal SIP Revision #14-01 containing Maryland's updated Clean Car regulations to reflect changes made to adopt California's LEV III Program. This SIP submittal consists of updates to make Maryland's Clean Car Program consistent with California's program. Specifically, California amended its LEV III program rule to allow as a compliance option the recent Federal GHG standards for model years 2017 to 2025. Since California's LEV III program addresses GHG pollutants, in addition to criteria pollutants that are precursors to ozone pollution, Maryland incorporated by reference this compliance alternative for California's LEV III program to its own Clean Car Program rule. On April 30, 2015, Maryland submitted another revision to its SIP to update the Clean Car Program rules. This latest change relates to the ZEV requirements of California's rules, including adjustments to optional compliance path (OCP) for manufacturers related to the elimination of certain credits in qualifying for the OCP and pooling of credits across model years. Another ZEV-related provision establishes a minimum amount of ZEV credits to be used each year, specifically a limit to use of non-ZEV credits to satisfy ZEV requirements. Further, California amended the definition for fast refueling for purposes of determining the ZEV type to limit credits to only technologies that have actually been demonstrated in practice. Maryland incorporated by reference in its Clean Car Program these latest changes to California's LEV III program. These two most recent Maryland SIP submittals are the subject of this rulemaking action. Maryland adopted California's updates to portions of CCR Title 13, Division 3 by amending COMAR 26.11.34.02, relating to incorporation by reference of California's LEV standards. The July 28, 2014 and April 13, 2015 SIP submittals include Maryland's adopted regulatory amendments to the Clean Car Program rule (with the exception of CCR, Title 13, Division 3, Article 5, Section 2030 ``Liquefied Petroleum Gas or Natural Gas Retrofit Systems,'' which Maryland requested EPA to exclude from the SIP). The April 13, 2015 SIP submittal will replace in its entirety the existing regulation COMAR 26.11.34.02 as approved in the SIP on July 9, 2014 with the revised version of COMAR 26.11.34.02 effective February 16, 2015. See 79 FR 38787. A list of California's regulations being incorporated by reference is included as part of Maryland's notice of proposed action dated December 1, 2014, which is included in the State submittal and available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR- 2015-0241. These revisions to Maryland's Clean Car Program, as approved in the Maryland SIP, are important to ensure consistency with California's LEV program. This will ensure that Maryland's Clean Vehicle Program complies with the requirements for adoption of another state's vehicle standards in lieu of Federal vehicle standards, per section 177 of the CAA. III. Final Action EPA is approving Maryland's July 28, 2014 and April 13, 2015 SIP submittals. These revisions amend the prior approved Maryland Clean Vehicle Program, specifically with respect to Maryland's updated incorporation by reference (at COMAR 26.11.34.02) of California's LEV program rules (at Title 13, CCR, Division 3, with the exception of CCR, Title 13, Division 3, Article 5, Section 2030). Maryland's SIP revisions serve to ensure consistency of Maryland's Clean Vehicle Program with California's LEV III program, satisfying Federal requirements for state adoption of vehicle emission standards under section 177 of the CAA. 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 this 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 14, 2015 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 13, 2015. 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. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rulemaking action, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Maryland's Clean Vehicle Program rules at COMAR 26.11.34.02, as adopted on January 20, 2015 and effective on February 16, 2015. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. General Requirements Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve SIP submissions [[Page 40921]] that comply 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 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. 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 14, 2015. 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 this 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 action approving revisions to the Maryland Clean Car 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. Dated: June 26, 2015. William C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart V--Maryland 0 2. In Sec. 52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising the entry for COMAR 26.11.34.02 to read as follows: Sec. 52.1070 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * EPA--Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Code of Maryland Additional explanation/ Administrative Regulations Title/subject State EPA approval date citation at 40 CFR (COMAR) citation effective date 52.1100 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * 26.11.34....................... Low Emissions Vehicle Program * * * * * * * 26.11.34.02 (except .02B(20)).. Incorporation by 02/16/15 07/14/15 [Insert Update to incorporate Reference. Federal Register by reference citation]. California's Advanced Clean Car Program rules, with the exception of Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 2030. * * * * * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 40922]] * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-17060 Filed 7-13-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 40917
2015. This will incorporate the rule into • is not subject to requirements of This action may not be challenged later
the federally enforceable SIP. Section 12(d) of the National in proceedings to enforce its
Technology Transfer and Advancement requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
III. Incorporation by Reference
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing application of those requirements would
regulatory text that includes be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; Environmental protection, Air
incorporation by reference. In and pollution control, Incorporation by
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR • does not provide EPA with the reference, Intergovernmental relations,
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the discretionary authority to address, as Reporting and recordkeeping
incorporation by reference of the appropriate, disproportionate human requirements, Volatile organic
SCAQMD rule described in the health or environmental effects, using compounds.
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth practicable and legally permissible Dated: June 9, 2015.
below. The EPA has made, and will methods, under Executive Order 12898
Jared Blumenfeld,
continue to make, these documents (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved Regional Administrator, Region IX.
available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy to apply on any Indian reservation land Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
at the appropriate EPA office (see the or in any other area where EPA or an of Federal Regulations is amended as
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for Indian tribe has demonstrated that a follows:
more information).] tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have PART 52—APPROVAL AND
IV. Statutory and Executive Order tribal implications and will not impose PROMULGATION OF
Reviews substantial direct costs on tribal IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Under the Clean Air Act, the governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
Administrator is required to approve a continues to read as follows:
SIP submission that complies with the FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
provisions of the Act and applicable The Congressional Review Act, 5 Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Subpart F—California
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by
state choices, provided that they meet that before a rule may take effect, the
adding paragraph (c)(457)(i)(E) to read
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. agency promulgating the rule must
as follows:
Accordingly, this action merely submit a rule report, which includes a
approves state law as meeting Federal copy of the rule, to each House of the § 52.220 Identification of plan.
requirements and does not impose Congress and to the Comptroller General * * * * *
of the United States. EPA will submit a (c) * * *
additional requirements beyond those
report containing this action and other (457) * * *
imposed by state law. For that reason,
required information to the U.S. Senate, (i) * * *
this action:
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
• Is not a significant regulatory action (E) South Coast Air Quality
the Comptroller General of the United Management District.
subject to review by the Office of States prior to publication of the rule in
Management and Budget under (1) Rule 1130, ‘‘Graphic Arts,’’
the Federal Register. A major rule amended on May 2, 2014.
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, cannot take effect until 60 days after it
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, is published in the Federal Register. * * * * *
January 21, 2011); This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
[FR Doc. 2015–17061 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am]
• does not impose an information defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
collection burden under the provisions Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
this action must be filed in the United
• is certified as not having a AGENCY
States Court of Appeals for the
significant economic impact on a appropriate circuit by September 14, 40 CFR Part 52
substantial number of small entities 2015. Filing a petition for
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 reconsideration by the Administrator of [EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0241; FRL–9930–35–
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); this final rule does not affect the finality Region 3]
• does not contain any unfunded of this action for the purposes of judicial
mandate or significantly or uniquely Approval and Promulgation of Air
review nor does it extend the time
affect small governments, as described Quality Implementation Plans;
within which a petition for judicial
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Maryland; Low Emissions Vehicle
review may be filed, and shall not
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); Program Revisions
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
• does not have Federalism or action. Parties with objections to this AGENCY: Environmental Protection
implications as specified in Executive direct final rule are encouraged to file a Agency (EPA).
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, comment in response to the parallel ACTION: Direct final rule.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1999); notice of proposed rulemaking for this
• is not an economically significant action published in the Proposed Rules SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
regulatory action based on health or section of today’s Federal Register, Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
safety risks subject to Executive Order rather than file an immediate petition action to approve two revisions to the
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); for judicial review of this direct final Maryland State Implementation Plan
• is not a significant regulatory action rule, so that EPA can withdraw this (SIP). The Clean Air Act (CAA) provides
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR direct final rule and address the authority allowing California to adopt
28355, May 22, 2001); comment in the proposed rulemaking. its own motor vehicle emissions
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:02 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM 14JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_41051/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 40921
that comply with the provisions of the appropriate, disproportionate human shall not postpone the effectiveness of
CAA and applicable Federal regulations. health or environmental effects, using such rule or action. Parties with
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). practicable and legally permissible objections to this direct final rule are
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, methods, under Executive Order 12898 encouraged to file a comment in
EPA’s role is to approve state choices, (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). response to the parallel notice of
provided that they meet the criteria of In addition, this rule does not have proposed rulemaking for this action
the CAA. Accordingly, this action tribal implications as specified by published in the proposed rules section
merely approves state law as meeting Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, of this Federal Register, rather than file
Federal requirements and does not November 9, 2000), because the SIP is an immediate petition for judicial
impose additional requirements beyond not approved to apply in Indian country review of this direct final rule, so that
those imposed by state law. For that located in the state, and EPA notes that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule
reason, this action: it will not impose substantial direct and address the comment in the
• is not a ‘‘significant regulatory costs on tribal governments or preempt proposed rulemaking action. This action
action’’ subject to review by the Office tribal law. approving revisions to the Maryland
of Management and Budget under B. Submission to Congress and the Clean Car Program may not be
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Comptroller General challenged later in proceedings to
October 4, 1993); enforce its requirements. (See section
• does not impose an information The Congressional Review Act, 5 307(b)(2).)
collection burden under the provisions U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 Business Regulatory Enforcement List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Environmental protection, Air
• is certified as not having a that before a rule may take effect, the pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
significant economic impact on a agency promulgating the rule must Incorporation by reference,
substantial number of small entities submit a rule report, which includes a Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 copy of the rule, to each House of the dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Congress and to the Comptroller General recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
• does not contain any unfunded of the United States. EPA will submit a organic compounds.
mandate or significantly or uniquely report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, Dated: June 26, 2015.
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act the U.S. House of Representatives, and William C. Early,
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); the Comptroller General of the United Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
• does not have Federalism States prior to publication of the rule in 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
implications as specified in Executive the Federal Register. A major rule
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, cannot take effect until 60 days after it PART 52—APPROVAL AND
1999); is published in the Federal Register. PROMULGATION OF
• is not an economically significant This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
regulatory action based on health or defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
safety risks subject to Executive Order ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); continues to read as follows:
• is not a significant regulatory action Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR petitions for judicial review of this
28355, May 22, 2001); action must be filed in the United States Subpart V—Maryland
• is not subject to requirements of Court of Appeals for the appropriate
Section 12(d) of the National circuit by September 14, 2015. Filing a ■ 2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
Technology Transfer and Advancement petition for reconsideration by the (c) is amended by revising the entry for
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Administrator of this final rule does not COMAR 26.11.34.02 to read as follows:
application of those requirements would affect the finality of this action for the
be inconsistent with the CAA; and purposes of judicial review nor does it § 52.1070 Identification of plan.
• does not provide EPA with the extend the time within which a petition * * * * *
discretionary authority to address, as for judicial review may be filed, and (c) * * *
EPA—APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP
Code of
Maryland State effective Additional explanation/
Administrative Title/subject EPA approval date
date citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
Regulations (COMAR)
citation
* * * * * * *
26.11.34 ......................... Low Emissions Vehicle Program
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
* * * * * * *
26.11.34.02 (except Incorporation by Ref- 02/16/15 07/14/15 [Insert Fed- Update to incorporate by reference California’s
.02B(20)). erence. eral Register cita- Advanced Clean Car Program rules, with the
tion]. exception of Title 13, California Code of Reg-
ulations, Division 3, Chapter 2, Article 5, Sec-
tion 2030.
* * * * * * *
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:02 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM 14JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_41051/page/5.svg)
![40922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 134 / Tuesday, July 14, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
* * * * * I. Background including Allegheny and Philadelphia
[FR Doc. 2015–17060 Filed 7–13–15; 8:45 am]
On March 18, 2015 (80 FR 14037), Counties, from $57.50 per ton of
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
EPA published a notice of proposed regulated air pollutant to $85 per ton.
rulemaking (NPR) for the The revision meets requirements in 40
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the CFR 70.9.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY NPR, EPA proposed approval of the IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Pennsylvania Title V Operating Program Reviews
40 CFR Part 70 revision to increase the annual Title V
fees paid by the owners or operators of A. General Requirements
[EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0119; FRL–9930–30– all Title V facilities throughout
This action merely approves state law
Region 3]
Pennsylvania, including Allegheny and as meeting Federal requirements and
Clean Air Act Title V Operating Permit Philadelphia Counties, from $57.50 per imposes no additional requirements
Program Revision; Pennsylvania ton of regulated air pollutant to $85 per beyond those imposed by state law. For
ton. The formal Title V Program revision that reason, this action:
AGENCY: Environmental Protection was submitted by Pennsylvania on • is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
Agency (EPA). February 11, 2014. action’’ subject to review by the Office
ACTION: Final rule. Under 40 CFR 70.9(a) and (b), an of Management and Budget under
approved state Title V operating permits Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection program must require that the owners or October 4, 1993);
Agency (EPA) is approving a Title V operators of part 70 sources pay annual • does not impose an information
Operating Permit Program revision fees, or the equivalent over some other collection burden under the provisions
submitted by the Commonwealth of period, that are sufficient to cover the of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
Pennsylvania. The revision amends the permit program costs and ensure that U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Title V fee program that funds the any fee required under 40 CFR 70.9 is • is certified as not having a
Pennsylvania Title V Operating Permit used solely for permit program costs. significant economic impact on a
Program. EPA is approving these Under Pennsylvania’s Title V permit substantial number of small entities
revisions to increase Pennsylvania’s emission fee rules at 25 PA Code under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
annual emission fees to $85 per ton of 127.705, the annual emission fee for (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
emissions for emissions from Title V emissions occurring in calendar year • does not contain any unfunded
sources of up to 4,000 tons of each 2012 was $57.50 per ton of regulated mandate or significantly or uniquely
regulated pollutant in accordance with pollutant for emissions of up to 4,000 affect small governments, as described
the requirements of the Clean Air Act tons of each regulated pollutant. The fee in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(CAA). structure has not been revised since of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
DATES: This final rule is effective on 1994. As discussed further in our • does not have Federalism
August 13, 2015. proposed approval of Pennsylvania’s implications as specified in Executive
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
Title V fee revision on March 18, 2015, Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
docket for this action under Docket ID Pennsylvania has determined that Title 1999);
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2015–0119. All V annual emission fee revenues • is not an economically significant
documents in the docket are listed in collected are no longer sufficient to
regulatory action based on health or
the www.regulations.gov Web site. cover Title V program costs.
safety risks subject to Executive Order
Although listed in the electronic docket, II. Summary of Title V Operating 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
some information is not publicly Permit Program Revision • is not a significant regulatory action
available, i.e., confidential business subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
In the February 11, 2014 program
information (CBI) or other information 28355, May 22, 2001);
revision, Pennsylvania included revised
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
25 PA Code 127.705 which • is not subject to requirements of
Certain other material, such as Section 12(d) of the National
Pennsylvania has amended to increase
copyrighted material, is not placed on Technology Transfer and Advancement
Pennsylvania’s annual emission fees.
the Internet and will be publicly Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
Fees are increased to $85 per ton of
available only in hard copy form. application of those requirements would
emissions for emissions from Title V
Publicly available docket materials are be inconsistent with the CAA; and
sources of up to 4,000 tons of each
available either electronically through • does not provide EPA with the
regulated pollutant. The provisions for
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for discretionary authority to address, as
increasing the annual emissions fees in
public inspection during normal appropriate, disproportionate human
response to increases in the Consumer
business hours at the Air Protection health or environmental effects, using
Price Index at 25 PA Code 127.705(d)
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection practicable and legally permissible
remain unchanged. The revised fees are
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, methods, under Executive Order 12898
designed to cover all reasonable costs
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
required to develop and administer the
Copies of the State submittal are In addition, this rule related to
Title V program as required by 40 CFR
available at the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Title V fees does not have
70.9(a) and (b).
Department of Environmental
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
tribal implications as specified by
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality III. Final Action Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market EPA is approving the Pennsylvania November 9, 2000), because the program
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. Title V Operating Program revision is not approved to apply in Indian
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: submitted on February 11, 2014 to country located in the state, and EPA
Gerallyn Duke (215) 814–2084, or by increase the annual Title V fees paid by notes that it will not impose substantial
email at duke.gerallyn@epa.gov. the owners or operators of all Title V direct costs on tribal governments or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: facilities throughout Pennsylvania, preempt tribal law.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:02 Jul 13, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM 14JYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_41051/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-23 09:19:52
Document Modified: 2018-02-23 09:19:52
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Direct final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective on September 14, 2015 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 13, 2015. 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. | |
| Contact | Brian Rehn, (215) 814-2176, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 40917 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Carbon Monoxide; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR