[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46672-46676]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19171]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0444; FRL-9711-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Virginia; Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area Revision to 
Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Commonwealth of Virginia's 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality (VADEQ) on September 26, 2011. The SIP revision 
consists of updating the 2009 and 2015 motor vehicle emission budgets 
(MVEBs) in the Fredericksburg 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area 
(Fredericksburg Area) by replacing the previously approved MVEBs with 
budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator 
emissions model (MOVES2010a). This action is being taken under the 
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 5, 
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0444 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-2012-0444, Donna Mastro, Acting 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-
2012-0444. 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

[[Page 46673]]

(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 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 [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    B. Prior Approval of Budgets
    C. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation 
Conformity Grace Period
    D. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a
III. What are the Criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's Submittal?
    A. The Revised Inventories
    B. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
    C. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets
V. What are the effects of EPA's proposed action?
VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve new MOVES2010a-based motor vehicle 
emission budgets (``budgets'') for the Fredericksburg Area. If EPA 
finalizes this proposed approval, the newly submitted MOVES2010a 
budgets will replace the existing, MOBILE6.2-based budgets in 
Virginia's SIP and must then be used in future transportation 
conformity analyses for the area according to the transportation 
conformity rule (40 CFR 93.118). At that time, the previously approved 
budgets would no longer be applicable for transportation conformity 
purposes.
    If EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional 
transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010a for the 
pollutants included in these budgets will end for the Fredericksburg 
Area on the effective date of that final approval. See 75 FR 9411, 
March 2, 2010, for background and Section II.C for details.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times, 
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment 
and maintenance areas for a given national ambient air quality standard 
(NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions (e.g., 
reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIP revisions) 
and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile source 
emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to address 
pollution from cars, trucks, and other on-road vehicles. SIP budgets 
are the portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to 
on-road vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in 
the area, will provide for attainment or maintenance. The budget serves 
as a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system. 
For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November 
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule. 58 FR 62188.
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans, 
transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and transportation projects 
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can 
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation 
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing 
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or an 
interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations can be 
found at 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must 
affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do 
not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the 
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same CAA 
purpose and year(s) addressed by a previously approved SIP, as is the 
case with Virginia's MOVES2010a nitrogen oxides (NOX) motor 
vehicle emission budgets, EPA must approve the revised SIP and budgets 
and can affirm the budgets are adequate at the same time. Once EPA 
approves the SIP, the revised budgets must be used by state and Federal 
agencies in determining whether transportation activities conform to 
the SIP as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive 
criteria for determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4).

B. Prior Approval of Budgets

    EPA had previously approved the 1997 ozone NAAQS Fredericksburg 
maintenance plan and redesignation request into the Virginia SIP on 
December 23, 2005 (70 FR 76165). EPA also approved the MVEBs for 
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC) during the 
rulemaking notice. The SIP's budgets were based on EPA's MOBILE6.2 
emissions model. The approval identified NOX and VOC MVEBs 
for transportation conformity purposes for the years 2004, 2009 and 
2015. VADEQ chose 2009 as an interim year in the 10-year maintenance 
demonstration period to demonstrate that the VOC and NOX 
emissions were not projected to increase above the 2004 attainment 
level during the time of the 10-year maintenance period. The 2004, 2009 
and 2015 MVEBs for the Fredericksburg area were approvable because the 
MVEBs for NOX and VOC

[[Page 46674]]

including the allocated safety margins continued to maintain the total 
emissions at or below the attainment year inventory levels as required 
by the transportation conformity regulations.

C. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation Conformity 
Grace Period

    The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating 
highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of 
emission test results and considerable advances in EPA's understanding 
of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest emissions data, 
more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased user flexibility, 
new software design, and significant new capabilities relative to those 
reflected in MOBILE6.2.
    EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411). 
EPA subsequently released two minor model revisions: MOVES2010a in 
September 2010 and MOVES2010b in April 2012. Both of these minor 
revisions enhance model performance and do not significantly affect the 
criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.
    MOVES will be required for new regional emissions analyses for 
transportation conformity determinations (``regional conformity 
analyses'') outside of California that begin after March 2, 2013 (or 
when EPA approves MOVES-based budgets, whichever comes first).\1\ The 
MOVES grace period for regional conformity analyses applies to both the 
use of MOVES2010 and approved minor revisions (e.g., MOVES2010a and 
MOVES2010b). For more information, see EPA's ``Policy Guidance on the 
Use of MOVES2010 and Subsequent Minor Model Revisions for State 
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other 
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models (hereafter MOVES2010 Policy 
Guidance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Upon the release of MOVES2010, EPA established a two-year 
grace period before MOVES is required to be used for regional 
conformity analyses (75 FR 9411). EPA subsequently promulgated a 
final rule on February 27, 2012 to provide an additional year before 
MOVES is required for these analyses (77 FR 11394).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA encouraged areas to examine how MOVES would affect future 
transportation plan and TIP conformity determinations so, if necessary, 
SIPs and budgets could be revised with MOVES or transportation plans 
and TIPs could be revised (as appropriate) prior to the end of the 
regional transportation conformity grace period. EPA also encouraged 
state and local air agencies to consider how the release of MOVES would 
affect analyses supporting SIP submissions under development (77 FR 
9411 and 77 FR 11394).

D. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    On September 26, 2011, VADEQ submitted a new SIP with budgets based 
on MOVES2010a for the years 2009 and 2015 to help ensure that the 
Fredericksburg area can demonstrate transportation conformity using 
MOVES2010a once the grace period expires. Table 1 compares the 
NOX MVEBs developed using MOBILE6.2 to the inventories 
developed using MOVES2010a.

    Table 1--Fredericksburg Maintenance Area Mobile Source Emissions
                         Comparison Tons NOX/Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                MOBILE6.2
                    Year                         MVEB *      MOVES2010a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004........................................        19.742        24.064
2009........................................        13.062        17.615
2015........................................         7.576         9.933
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes conformity buffers

III. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing 
SIPs continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., reasonable further 
progress, attainment, or maintenance). States that revise their 
existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that the SIP 
continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor 
vehicle emissions contained in the budgets. The SIP must also meet any 
applicable SIP requirements under CAA section 110.
    In addition, the transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4)(iv)) requires that ``the motor vehicle emissions 
budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources, 
is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further 
progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the 
given implementation plan submission).'' This and the other adequacy 
criteria found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can 
find submitted budgets adequate or approve them for conformity 
purposes.
    In addition, EPA has stated that areas can revise their budgets and 
inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if: (1) The 
SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor 
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and 
milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the 
state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for 
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do 
not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first 
criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions 
reductions between the base year and attainment or maintenance year are 
the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. For more 
information, see EPA's MOVES2010 Policy Guidance.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittal?

A. The Revised Inventories

    Virginia included the updated 2004, 2009, and 2015 NOX 
MVEBs calculated using the latest planning assumptions for the 
Fredericksburg area and MOVES2010a in Table 2 below. Since existing VOC 
MVEBs using MOBILE6.2 allow a seamless transportation conformity 
process when using MOVES2010a, the existing VOC MVEBS were not revised 
in this SIP revision. More detailed information on the assumptions used 
in the MOVES2010a modeling, including growth assumptions, can be found 
in the docket prepared for this rulemaking action.

 Table 2--NOX Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Calculated With MOVES2010a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          NOX  Emissions
                          Year                               tons/day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Attainment year....................................          24.064
2009 Predicted Emissions................................          17.615
Conformity Buffers......................................           2.000
2009 Interim Budget Year................................          19.615
2015 Predicted Emissions................................           9.933
Conformity Buffers......................................           3.000
2015 Final Budget.......................................          12.933
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its September 26, 2011 SIP revision submission, Virginia 
demonstrated how future emissions of NOX would not exceed 
the level of the attainment inventory for a 10-year period following 
redesignation in Table 3 below. The projected emissions for the point 
and area source categories reflect the expected ozone season daily 
emissions based on the best available growth rates and projections used 
in the 1997 ozone NAAQS Fredericksburg maintenance plan. The nonroad 
category reflects emissions estimated using NONROAD2008a. More detailed 
information on the analyses showing

[[Page 46675]]

that the projected emissions from the point and area source categories 
do not need to be updated and continue to demonstrate that air quality 
will remain compliant with the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2015 and beyond 
can be found in the docket prepared for this rulemaking action.

                          Table 3--Fredericksburg Area NOX Emissions From 2004 to 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 NOX in tons/day
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                     Point         Area \1\         Nonroad       Mobile \2\         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year 2004.......................           0.179           3.465           4.950          24.064          32.658
Year 2009.......................           0.180           3.926           4.286          19.615          28.007
[Delta] 2004-2009...............           0.001           0.461          -0.664          -4.449          -4.651
Year 2015.......................           0.182           4.742           2.953          12.933          20.810
[Delta] 2004-2015...............           0.003           1.277          -1.997         -11.131         -11.848
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes selected local controls (open burning).
\2\ Includes conformity buffers identified in Table 2.

B. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    EPA is proposing to approve the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted 
by Virginia for use in determining transportation conformity in the 
Fredericksburg area. EPA is making this proposal based on our 
evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 
93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of Virginia's submittal and 
compliance with SIP requirements. EPA has determined, based on its 
evaluation, that the area's SIP would continue to serve its intended 
purpose with the submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets and that the 
budgets themselves meet the adequacy criteria in the conformity rule at 
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). Specifically:
     The submitted SIP was endorsed and subject to a state 
public hearing ((e)(4)(i));
     Before the submitted SIP was submitted to EPA, 
consultation among Federal, state, and local agencies occurred, and 
full documentation was provided to EPA ((e)(4)(ii));
     The budgets are clearly identified and precisely 
quantified ((e)(4)(iii));
     The budgets, when considered together with all other 
emissions sources, are consistent with applicable requirements for 
reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance ((e)(4)(iv));
     The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the 
emissions inventory and control measures in the submitted SIP 
((e)(4)(v)); and
     The revisions explain and document changes to the previous 
budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions, changes to 
established safety margins, and reasons for the changes (including the 
basis for any changes related to emission factors or vehicle miles 
traveled) ((e)(4)(vi)).
    The SIP revision satisfies all of the above criteria for adequacy. 
The updated NOX MVEBs presented in Table 2 show that air 
quality in the Fredericksburg area will continue to maintain compliance 
with the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Similar to the previously approved budgets, 
the 2009 and 2015 MVEBs for the Fredericksburg area are approvable 
because the MVEBs for NOX including the allocated safety 
margins continue to maintain the total emissions at or below the 
attainment year inventory levels as required by the transportation 
conformity regulations. The updated NOX MVEBs using 
MOVES2010a will not negatively affect the Fredericksburg area's ability 
to comply with the 1997 ozone standard.
    EPA has always required under the CAA that revisions to existing 
SIPs and budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (e.g., 
reasonable further progress or attainment). Therefore, states that 
revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that the SIP continues to 
meet applicable requirements with the new level of motor vehicle 
emissions calculated by the new model.
    To that end, Virginia's submitted SIP meets EPA's two criteria for 
revising budgets without revising the entire SIP because: (1) The SIP 
continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor 
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES2010a base year 
and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) 
Virginia can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for 
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do 
not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    The VADEQ September 26, 2011 SIP revision submission updates the 
2009 and 2015 MVEBs using the MOVES2010a model. EPA has articulated its 
policy regarding the use of MOVES2010a in SIP development in its 
MOVES2010 Policy Guidance. EPA's review of VADEQ's submittal indicates 
that Virginia has appropriately applied this policy and meets the two 
criteria for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP. EPA 
policy guidance also requires that Virginia consider whether growth and 
control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e., 
point, area, and non-road mobile sources) are still accurate at the 
time the proposed revision is developed. Virginia reassessed the growth 
and control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources and 
concluded that these assumptions will continue to remain compliant with 
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2015 and beyond for the Fredericksburg 
area. Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA 
is proposing that the SIP will continue to meet its requirements if the 
revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with 
MOVES2010a inventories.

C. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets

    Pursuant to Virginia's request, EPA is proposing that, if we 
finalize the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing 
MOBILE6.2 budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation 
conformity purposes upon the effective date of that final approval. In 
addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the regional 
transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010 (and 
subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these 
budgets will end for the Fredericksburg area on the effective date of 
that final approval.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information, see EPA's MOVES2010 Policy Guidance 
(April 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What are the effects of EPA's proposed action?

    EPA is proposing in this action that the Fredericksburg's area 
existing approved budgets for NOX be replaced with new 
budgets based on the

[[Page 46676]]

MOVES2010a emissions model. If this proposal is finalized, future 
transportation conformity determinations would use the new, MOVES2010a-
based budgets and would no longer use the existing MOBILE6.2-based 
budgets for applicable years. EPA is also proposing that the 
Fredericksburg area would continue to meet its requirements under the 
CAA when these new budgets are included.

VI. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the 
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to 
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit) 
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a 
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden 
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking 
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's 
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty 
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity 
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation 
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes 
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's 
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and 
information about the content of those documents that are the product 
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not 
extend to documents or information (1) that are generated or developed 
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 
that are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) that 
demonstrate a clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public 
health or environment; or (4) that are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the 
Privilege law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege 
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents 
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program 
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce 
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less 
stringent than their Federal counterparts * * *.'' The opinion 
concludes that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or 
other information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of 
these programs could not be privileged because such documents and 
information are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required 
by Federal law to maintain program delegation, authorization or 
approval.''
    Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that 
``[t]o the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal 
law,'' any person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a 
state agency regarding a violation of an environmental statute, 
regulation, permit, or administrative order is granted immunity from 
administrative or civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 
1998 opinion states that the quoted language renders this statute 
inapplicable to enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since 
``no immunity could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal 
penalties because granting such immunity would not be consistent with 
Federal law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and 
Immunity statutes will not preclude Virginia from enforcing its program 
consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because EPA has 
also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law can 
affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal 
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under 
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to 
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, 
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by 
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed 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 proposed rule, pertaining to Virginia's update of 
the Fredericksburg area motor vehicle emission budgets based on 
MOVES2010a, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic 
compounds.

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

    Dated: July 26, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-19171 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P