Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle Program, 34911-34915 [2013-13717]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
which, upon finding ‘‘good cause,’’
authorizes agencies to dispense with
public participation and section
553(d)(3) which allows an agency to
make an action effective immediately
(thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed
effective date otherwise provided for in
the APA). With respect to the SIP
revision described above, today’s
administrative action simply codifies
provisions which are already in effect as
a matter of law in Federal and approved
state programs. Under section 553 of the
APA, an agency may find good cause
where procedures are ‘‘impractical,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.’’ Public comment for this
administrative action is ‘‘unnecessary’’
because the revisions are administrative
and non-substantive in nature.
Immediate notice of this action in the
Federal Register benefits the public by
providing the public notice of the
updated Maryland SIP. Approval of
these revisions will ensure consistency
between state and Federally-approved
rules. EPA has determined that these
changes will not relax the SIP or
adversely impact air emissions.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. General Requirements
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act 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
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act (CRA)
(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. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). In taking action
on this SIP revision, EPA already made
such a finding. Thus, the SIP revisions
announced in this notice became
effective upon EPA’s February 6, 2013
Letter Notice to Maryland. Today’s
administrative action simply codifies a
provision which is already in effect as
a matter of law in Federal and approved
state programs. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this action
in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34911
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 August 12, 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 to
remove the obsolete Consent Decree for
the Allegany County Board of
Education, Beall Jr./Sr. High School 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, Particulate matter.
Dated: May 28, 2013.
W.C. Early,
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
§ 52.1070
[Amended]
2. In § 52.1070, the table in paragraph
(d) is amended by removing the entry
for Beall Jr./Sr. High School.
■
[FR Doc. 2013–13718 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0511; FRL–9822–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle
Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Maryland on
December 20, 2007, November 12, 2010,
and June 22, 2011, as amended March
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
34912
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
22, 2013. These SIP revisions pertain to
adoption by Maryland of a Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, which
incorporates by reference California’s
second generation Low Emission
Vehicle (LEVII) program regulations.
Maryland’s LEV regulations require new
2011 and subsequent 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 in Maryland
to meet California emission standards.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) contains
authority by which states other than
California may adopt new motor vehicle
emissions standards that are identical to
California’s standards. Maryland’s
supplemental SIP revisions submitted
on November 12, 2010 and June 22,
2011 modify its program to harmonize
with updates by California to its LEVII
program and Federal GHG standards
effective on 2012–2016 model year
vehicles. The March 22, 2013 SIP
amendment withdraws from the SIP
revision submittal the portion of
Maryland’s LEV program rule that
incorporates by reference a provision of
California’s rule regulating retrofit
systems for conversion of motor
vehicles to use natural gas or liquefied
petroleum gas in lieu of the fuel on
which they were originally certified.
EPA is approving all of Maryland’s LEV
Program SIP revisions, except for the
portion of Maryland’s regulation
withdrawn by Maryland from the SIP on
March 22, 2013, in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
This final rule is effective on July
11, 2013.
DATES:
EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0511. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the electronic docket,
some information is not publicly
available, i.e., 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 for
public inspection 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
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore,
Maryland 21230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Rehn, (215) 814–2176, or by email
at rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969),
EPA published in the Federal Register
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR)
for the State of Maryland proposing
approval of three SIP revisions related
to Maryland’s LEV program. The first of
these Maryland SIP revisions was
submitted to EPA on December 20, 2007
(#07–16) and included Maryland’s Low
Emission Vehicle Program, as adopted
by the state in 2007. On November 12,
2010, Maryland submitted a revision to
the 2007 SIP submittal (#10–08) to
amend its Clean Car Program rules to
incorporate changes made by California
to its LEV regulations since Maryland’s
initial adoption of the program in 2007.
On June 22, 2011, Maryland submitted
another SIP revision (#11–05) consisting
of updates to Maryland’s program
regulations adopting additional changes
made by California to its own rules
since Maryland’s regulatory changes
made as part of the 2010 SIP submittal.
On March 22, 2013, Maryland submitted
a letter to EPA formally withdrawing a
portion of the SIP revision submitted
June 22, 2011. Specifically, Maryland
requested withdrawal of a section of its
LEV program rule (COMAR
26.11.34.02B(17)), which incorporated
by reference section 2030 of Division 3,
Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the
California Code of Regulations for
natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas
retrofit systems.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
A detailed description of Maryland’s
and California’s Low Emission Vehicle
program is provided in the NPR
published in the Federal Register on
August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), and will
not be repeated here. However, a brief
summary of Maryland’s SIP revision is
provided below.
A. Maryland’s Low Emission Vehicle
Program
Maryland adopted into law the
Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, the
purpose of which was to implement
California’s LEV program in Maryland.
The purpose of doing so was to improve
ambient air quality in Maryland. This
statute compelled the Maryland
Department of Environment to adopt a
rule in November 2007, which
established a new Maryland regulatory
chapter COMAR 26.11.34, entitled ‘‘Low
Emission Vehicle Program.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
The regulation requires that 2011 and
newer model year passenger cars, lightduty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles
(with a GVWR of 14,000 pounds or less
that are sold in Maryland as new cars,
or that are transferred in Maryland)
meet the applicable California LEVII
emissions standards. The objectives of
the program are twofold. The first is to
reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide
(NOX) and volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions, which are groundlevel ozone precursor pollutants. The
program relies on decreasing fleet
average emission standards, applicable
to each vehicle manufacturer each year.
This program uses varying standards
established by California, ranging from
LEV standards to zero emission vehicle
(ZEV) standards, which are the most
stringent standards set. In between these
fall: 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 complies by selling a mix
of vehicles meeting any of these
standards, as long as their salesweighted, overall average of the various
standard sets meets the overall fleet
average and ZEV requirements.
Maryland has adopted California’s
second generation of LEV program rules,
or LEV II, which were approved by
California on October 28, 1999, and
became effective in California on
November 27, 1999. Maryland has not
adopted or submitted to EPA for SIP
approval subsequently adopted
California rules, including California’s
LEV III program rules.
The second objective of Maryland’s
LEV program is to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from subject new
vehicles purchased for use in Maryland.
The GHG program also makes use of a
fleet average compliance method
(similar in methodology to that of the
non-methane organic gas (NMOG) fleet
average standard portion of the LEV
program), which serves as a means to
reduce ground level ozone and air toxics
pollution. Overall compliance is
demonstrated by showing that the entire
fleet of vehicles produced by each
manufacturer (as distributed within the
allowable standard sets) meets the
specified fleet average NMOG and GHG
standards.
B. Maryland’s Clean Car Program SIP
Revisions
Maryland initially adopted
regulations .01 to .14 under COMAR
26.11.34, which is a new chapter
entitled ‘‘Low Emission Vehicle
Program.’’ Maryland formally submitted
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
a SIP revision for the Maryland Clean
Car Program to EPA on December 20,
2007.
Maryland subsequently amended
regulation .02 (entitled ‘‘Incorporation
by Reference’’) of COMAR 26.11.34 via
a proposed state action published in the
Maryland Register on August 14, 2009,
followed by a final action published on
November 6, 2009. Maryland submitted
this amendment to EPA as a SIP
revision on November 12, 2010.
Maryland once more amended
regulation .02 (Incorporation by
Reference) of COMAR 26.11.34.
Maryland submitted a SIP revision to
EPA on June 22, 2011 to amend the
prior SIP revisions to reflect this most
recent state regulatory amendment to
the Maryland LEV program rule. On
March 22, 2013, Secretary Summers of
the Maryland Department of the
Environment submitted a letter to EPA’s
Regional Administrator Shawn Garvin
formally withdrawing a portion of the
June 22, 2011 SIP revision.
The specific requirements and other
details of Maryland’s LEV program SIP
revisions and the rationale for EPA’s
proposed action are explained in the
NPR and will not be restated here. EPA
received adverse comments during the
public comment period on our August
23, 2012 NPR. A summary of those
comments and EPA’s responses are
provided in Section III of this action.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Summary of Public Comments and
EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter challenges
Maryland’s authority to adopt, by
reference, California’s motor vehicle
regulations for alternative fuel
aftermarket systems, found in
California’s Code of Regulations (CCR),
at 13 CCR 2030. The commenter argues
that the authority in section 177 of the
CAA allowing other states to adopt
California’s standards (which are
waived from preemption under CAA
section 209(b)) is limited to new motor
vehicles and motor vehicle engines, and
that this authority does not extend to
adoption of California’s regulations
governing aftermarket alternative fuel
systems. Further, the commenter argues
that CAA section 209(c) preempts states
other than California from adopting
aftermarket parts regulations when EPA
has acted on its authority to regulate
such parts under Federal law. The
commenter argues that the portion of
California’s regulation (13 CCR 2030)
which Maryland has incorporated by
reference has not been updated in many
years and is functionally outdated and
conflicts in some aspects with more
recent Federal rules on the subject.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Jun 10, 2013
Jkt 229001
Response: On March 22, 2013,
Maryland officially withdrew the
portion of Maryland’s LEV Program SIP
Revision #11–05 which this commenter
is addressing. Specifically, Maryland
requested withdrawal of COMAR
26.11.34.02B(17), which served to adopt
by reference § 2030 of Division 3,
Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the
CCR. EPA is taking final rulemaking
action on the remaining portions of the
Maryland SIP submittals from December
20, 2007, November 12, 2010, and June
22, 2011. Because Maryland has
withdrawn this portion of the SIP and
because EPA is not taking any final
rulemaking action on COMAR
26.11.34.02B(17), the commenter’s
arguments related to CAA sections 177
and 209 are not relevant to this final
action.
Comment: Several commenters
generally supported efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from new
light to medium duty vehicles, per
Maryland’s LEV program. One
commenter expressed disappointment
that Federal law under the CAA limits
states choices to adoption of either
California new vehicle standards or
Federal standards, rather than allowing
states to adopt their own more stringent
standards. The commenter argues that
the current pace in limiting GHG
emissions is insufficient to limit climate
change or to ameliorate damage already
done.
Response: EPA appreciates the
commenters’ support for clean vehicle
programs and the commensurate GHG
benefits resulting from adoption of a
LEV program. With respect to states’
authority to adopt their own standards
different from Federal new vehicle
standards or those of California,
Congress explicitly limited this
authority with the prohibition language
of section 209 of the CAA. That section
states that ‘‘no State or political
subdivision thereof shall adopt or
attempt to enforce any standard relating
to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines
subject to this part.’’ That same section
of the CAA allows the Administrator to
waive that prohibition for California,
which had already adopted standards to
control new motor vehicle emissions
prior to March 30, 1966. Further, section
177 of the CAA allows any state with an
approved SIP plan to adopt and enforce
standards for new motor vehicles or
motor vehicle engines that are identical
to California standards for which a
waiver has been granted, if specified
lead time requirements are met.
Congress was explicit in the relevant
CAA authority of their intent to grant
states the option to adopt either
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34913
California or Federal vehicle emission
standards—and also to prohibit states
from independently adopting or
enforcing any third set of vehicle
standards.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving three SIP revisions
submitted by Maryland with respect to
Maryland’s adoption of a Low Emission
Vehicle Program into the Maryland SIP.
These SIP revisions were submitted on
December 20, 2007; November 12, 2010;
and June 22, 2011. EPA is excluding
from final approval COMAR
26.11.34.02B(17), as Maryland formally
requested withdrawal of that regulatory
provision in a letter to EPA dated March
22, 2013.
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 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
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
34914
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
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
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: May 28, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
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 August 12, 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 to approve the Maryland
Low Emission Vehicle Program into the
Maryland SIP may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
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
(c) is amended by adding entries in
numerical order for COMAR 26.11.34 to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.1070
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP
Code of Maryland administrative regulations
(COMAR) citation
*
State effective date
Title/subject
*
*
*
26.11.34
Purpose ..........................................
12/17/07
26.11.34.02 (except .02B(17)).
Incorporation by Reference ............
26.11.34.03 .......
Applicability and Exemptions .........
5/16/11
11/16/09
12/17/07
12/17/07
26.11.34.04 .......
Definitions .......................................
12/17/07
26.11.34.05 .......
Emissions Requirements ................
12/17/07
26.11.34.06 .......
12/17/07
26.11.34.11 .......
Fleet Average NMOG Requirements.
Initial NMOG Credit Account Balances.
Fleet Average Greenhouse Gas
Requirements.
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Requirements.
Initial ZEV Credit Account Balances.
Vehicle Testing ...............................
26.11.34.12 .......
Warranty .........................................
12/17/07
26.11.34.13 .......
Manufacturer
onstration.
12/17/07
26.11.34.08 .......
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
26.11.34.09 .......
26.11.34.10 .......
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Jun 10, 2013
Compliance
Jkt 229001
Dem-
PO 00000
*
*
Low Emissions Vehicle Program
26.11.34.01 .......
26.11.34.07 .......
Additional explanation/
citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
EPA approval date
12/17/07
12/17/07
12/17/07
12/17/07
12/17/07
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
6/11/13; [Insert page number
where the document begins].
6/11/13; [Insert page number
where the document begins].
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
6/11/13;
where
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
[Insert page number
the document begins].
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
*
34915
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 112 / Tuesday, June 11, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS, TECHNICAL MEMORANDA, AND STATUTES IN THE MARYLAND SIP—Continued
Code of Maryland administrative regulations
(COMAR) citation
Title/subject
26.11.34.14 .......
Enforcement ...................................
*
*
*
State effective date
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–13717 Filed 6–10–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0289; FRL–9822–3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Revision to the Classification and
Implementation of the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for the Northern Virginia
Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Virginia State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The revisions consist of two
amendments: an amendment to the list
of nonattainment areas; and an
amendment to the 1997 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for ozone for purposes of
transportation conformity. EPA is
approving these revisions to include the
classification of Northern Virginia as
‘‘marginal’’ for the 2008 ozone NAAQS,
and to revoke the 1997 ozone NAAQS
for the purposes of transportation
conformity as established by the EPA in
accordance with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August
12, 2013 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse written comment
by July 11, 2013. 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–2013–0289 by one of the
following methods:
A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Jun 10, 2013
12/17/07
Jkt 229001
6/11/13; [Insert page number
where the document begins].
*
*
B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.
C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0289,
Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director,
Office of Air Program Planning, Air
Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted 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–2013–
0289. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Additional explanation/
citation at 40 CFR 52.1100
EPA approval date
Sfmt 4700
*
*
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 Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality, 629 East Main
Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gregory Becoat, (215) 814–2036, or by
email at becoat.gregory@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Summary of SIP Revision
On March 20, 2013, the
Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a
formal revision to its SIP. The SIP
revision consists of two amendments to
the Virginia Administrative Code: (1) an
amendment to the list of nonattainment
areas in section 9VAC5–20–204, and (2)
an amendment to the 1997 NAAQS for
ozone specified in section 9VAC5–30–
55. The first is an amendment that
reflects EPA’s rulemaking action on May
21, 2012 to establish initial air quality
designations for most areas in the
United States for the 2008 primary and
secondary ozone NAAQS (77 FR 30087).
In this rulemaking action, EPA
designated the Northern Virginia
nonattainment area as ‘‘marginal’’ for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The second
amendment reflects a separate EPA
rulemaking action also made on May 21,
2012, in which the EPA provided for the
revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
for transportation conformity purposes
one year after the effective date of
designations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
(77 FR 30160). For Virginia, one year
after the effective date is July 20, 2013.
E:\FR\FM\11JNR1.SGM
11JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34911-34915]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13717]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0511; FRL-9822-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Low Emission Vehicle Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Maryland on December 20, 2007, November 12,
2010, and June 22, 2011, as amended March
[[Page 34912]]
22, 2013. These SIP revisions pertain to adoption by Maryland of a Low
Emission Vehicle (LEV) program, which incorporates by reference
California's second generation Low Emission Vehicle (LEVII) program
regulations. Maryland's LEV regulations require new 2011 and subsequent
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 in Maryland to meet California emission standards. The
Clean Air Act (CAA) contains authority by which states other than
California may adopt new motor vehicle emissions standards that are
identical to California's standards. Maryland's supplemental SIP
revisions submitted on November 12, 2010 and June 22, 2011 modify its
program to harmonize with updates by California to its LEVII program
and Federal GHG standards effective on 2012-2016 model year vehicles.
The March 22, 2013 SIP amendment withdraws from the SIP revision
submittal the portion of Maryland's LEV program rule that incorporates
by reference a provision of California's rule regulating retrofit
systems for conversion of motor vehicles to use natural gas or
liquefied petroleum gas in lieu of the fuel on which they were
originally certified. EPA is approving all of Maryland's LEV Program
SIP revisions, except for the portion of Maryland's regulation
withdrawn by Maryland from the SIP on March 22, 2013, in accordance
with the requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 11, 2013.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0511. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 for public inspection 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 rehn.brian@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), EPA published in the Federal
Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of
Maryland proposing approval of three SIP revisions related to
Maryland's LEV program. The first of these Maryland SIP revisions was
submitted to EPA on December 20, 2007 (07-16) and included
Maryland's Low Emission Vehicle Program, as adopted by the state in
2007. On November 12, 2010, Maryland submitted a revision to the 2007
SIP submittal (10-08) to amend its Clean Car Program rules to
incorporate changes made by California to its LEV regulations since
Maryland's initial adoption of the program in 2007. On June 22, 2011,
Maryland submitted another SIP revision (11-05) consisting of
updates to Maryland's program regulations adopting additional changes
made by California to its own rules since Maryland's regulatory changes
made as part of the 2010 SIP submittal. On March 22, 2013, Maryland
submitted a letter to EPA formally withdrawing a portion of the SIP
revision submitted June 22, 2011. Specifically, Maryland requested
withdrawal of a section of its LEV program rule (COMAR
26.11.34.02B(17)), which incorporated by reference section 2030 of
Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of the California Code of
Regulations for natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas retrofit
systems.
II. Summary of SIP Revision
A detailed description of Maryland's and California's Low Emission
Vehicle program is provided in the NPR published in the Federal
Register on August 23, 2012 (77 FR 50969), and will not be repeated
here. However, a brief summary of Maryland's SIP revision is provided
below.
A. Maryland's Low Emission Vehicle Program
Maryland adopted into law the Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007, the
purpose of which was to implement California's LEV program in Maryland.
The purpose of doing so was to improve ambient air quality in Maryland.
This statute compelled the Maryland Department of Environment to adopt
a rule in November 2007, which established a new Maryland regulatory
chapter COMAR 26.11.34, entitled ``Low Emission Vehicle Program.''
The regulation requires that 2011 and newer model year passenger
cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (with a GVWR of
14,000 pounds or less that are sold in Maryland as new cars, or that
are transferred in Maryland) meet the applicable California LEVII
emissions standards. The objectives of the program are twofold. The
first is to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOX) and
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, which are ground-level ozone
precursor pollutants. The program relies on decreasing fleet average
emission standards, applicable to each vehicle manufacturer each year.
This program uses varying standards established by California, ranging
from LEV standards to zero emission vehicle (ZEV) standards, which are
the most stringent standards set. In between these fall: 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 complies 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. Maryland has adopted
California's second generation of LEV program rules, or LEV II, which
were approved by California on October 28, 1999, and became effective
in California on November 27, 1999. Maryland has not adopted or
submitted to EPA for SIP approval subsequently adopted California
rules, including California's LEV III program rules.
The second objective of Maryland's LEV program is to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from subject new vehicles purchased for
use in Maryland. The GHG program also makes use of a fleet average
compliance method (similar in methodology to that of the non-methane
organic gas (NMOG) fleet average standard portion of the LEV program),
which serves as a means to reduce ground level ozone and air toxics
pollution. Overall compliance is demonstrated by showing that the
entire fleet of vehicles produced by each manufacturer (as distributed
within the allowable standard sets) meets the specified fleet average
NMOG and GHG standards.
B. Maryland's Clean Car Program SIP Revisions
Maryland initially adopted regulations .01 to .14 under COMAR
26.11.34, which is a new chapter entitled ``Low Emission Vehicle
Program.'' Maryland formally submitted
[[Page 34913]]
a SIP revision for the Maryland Clean Car Program to EPA on December
20, 2007.
Maryland subsequently amended regulation .02 (entitled
``Incorporation by Reference'') of COMAR 26.11.34 via a proposed state
action published in the Maryland Register on August 14, 2009, followed
by a final action published on November 6, 2009. Maryland submitted
this amendment to EPA as a SIP revision on November 12, 2010.
Maryland once more amended regulation .02 (Incorporation by
Reference) of COMAR 26.11.34. Maryland submitted a SIP revision to EPA
on June 22, 2011 to amend the prior SIP revisions to reflect this most
recent state regulatory amendment to the Maryland LEV program rule. On
March 22, 2013, Secretary Summers of the Maryland Department of the
Environment submitted a letter to EPA's Regional Administrator Shawn
Garvin formally withdrawing a portion of the June 22, 2011 SIP
revision.
The specific requirements and other details of Maryland's LEV
program SIP revisions and the rationale for EPA's proposed action are
explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. EPA received
adverse comments during the public comment period on our August 23,
2012 NPR. A summary of those comments and EPA's responses are provided
in Section III of this action.
III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses
Comment: The commenter challenges Maryland's authority to adopt, by
reference, California's motor vehicle regulations for alternative fuel
aftermarket systems, found in California's Code of Regulations (CCR),
at 13 CCR 2030. The commenter argues that the authority in section 177
of the CAA allowing other states to adopt California's standards (which
are waived from preemption under CAA section 209(b)) is limited to new
motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines, and that this authority does
not extend to adoption of California's regulations governing
aftermarket alternative fuel systems. Further, the commenter argues
that CAA section 209(c) preempts states other than California from
adopting aftermarket parts regulations when EPA has acted on its
authority to regulate such parts under Federal law. The commenter
argues that the portion of California's regulation (13 CCR 2030) which
Maryland has incorporated by reference has not been updated in many
years and is functionally outdated and conflicts in some aspects with
more recent Federal rules on the subject.
Response: On March 22, 2013, Maryland officially withdrew the
portion of Maryland's LEV Program SIP Revision 11-05 which
this commenter is addressing. Specifically, Maryland requested
withdrawal of COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), which served to adopt by
reference Sec. 2030 of Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 5 of Title 13 of
the CCR. EPA is taking final rulemaking action on the remaining
portions of the Maryland SIP submittals from December 20, 2007,
November 12, 2010, and June 22, 2011. Because Maryland has withdrawn
this portion of the SIP and because EPA is not taking any final
rulemaking action on COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), the commenter's arguments
related to CAA sections 177 and 209 are not relevant to this final
action.
Comment: Several commenters generally supported efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from new light to medium duty vehicles, per
Maryland's LEV program. One commenter expressed disappointment that
Federal law under the CAA limits states choices to adoption of either
California new vehicle standards or Federal standards, rather than
allowing states to adopt their own more stringent standards. The
commenter argues that the current pace in limiting GHG emissions is
insufficient to limit climate change or to ameliorate damage already
done.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenters' support for clean vehicle
programs and the commensurate GHG benefits resulting from adoption of a
LEV program. With respect to states' authority to adopt their own
standards different from Federal new vehicle standards or those of
California, Congress explicitly limited this authority with the
prohibition language of section 209 of the CAA. That section states
that ``no State or political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt
to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new
motor vehicles or motor vehicle engines subject to this part.'' That
same section of the CAA allows the Administrator to waive that
prohibition for California, which had already adopted standards to
control new motor vehicle emissions prior to March 30, 1966. Further,
section 177 of the CAA allows any state with an approved SIP plan to
adopt and enforce standards for new motor vehicles or motor vehicle
engines that are identical to California standards for which a waiver
has been granted, if specified lead time requirements are met. Congress
was explicit in the relevant CAA authority of their intent to grant
states the option to adopt either California or Federal vehicle
emission standards--and also to prohibit states from independently
adopting or enforcing any third set of vehicle standards.
IV. Final Action
EPA is approving three SIP revisions submitted by Maryland with
respect to Maryland's adoption of a Low Emission Vehicle Program into
the Maryland SIP. These SIP revisions were submitted on December 20,
2007; November 12, 2010; and June 22, 2011. EPA is excluding from final
approval COMAR 26.11.34.02B(17), as Maryland formally requested
withdrawal of that regulatory provision in a letter to EPA dated March
22, 2013.
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 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
[[Page 34914]]
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 August 12, 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 to approve the Maryland Low Emission Vehicle Program
into the Maryland SIP 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: May 28, 2013.
W.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 adding
entries in numerical order for COMAR 26.11.34 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 State Additional explanation/
administrative regulations Title/subject effective EPA approval date citation at 40 CFR
(COMAR) citation date 52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.11.34 Low Emissions Vehicle Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26.11.34.01................ Purpose............... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.02 (except Incorporation by 5/16/11 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
.02B(17)). Reference. 11/16/09 number where the
12/17/07 document begins].
26.11.34.03................ Applicability and 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Exemptions. number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.04................ Definitions........... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.05................ Emissions Requirements 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.06................ Fleet Average NMOG 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Requirements. number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.07................ Initial NMOG Credit 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Account Balances. number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.08................ Fleet Average 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Greenhouse Gas number where the
Requirements. document begins].
26.11.34.09................ Zero Emission Vehicle 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
(ZEV) Requirements. number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.10................ Initial ZEV Credit 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Account Balances. number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.11................ Vehicle Testing....... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.12................ Warranty.............. 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
26.11.34.13................ Manufacturer 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
Compliance number where the
Demonstration. document begins].
[[Page 34915]]
26.11.34.14................ Enforcement........... 12/17/07 6/11/13; [Insert page ......................
number where the
document begins].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-13717 Filed 6-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
