Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28215 

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). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, the rule does not have tribal 

implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11782 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0227; FRL–9927–69– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Utah; Utah County—Trading of Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets for PM10

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of Utah. 

On March 9, 2015, the Governor of Utah 

submitted a revision to the Utah SIP, 

adding a new rule regarding trading of 

motor vehicle emission budgets for Utah 

County. The rule allows trading from 

the motor vehicle emissions budget for 

primary particulate matter of 10 microns 

or less in diameter (PM10) to the motor 

vehicle emissions budget for nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) which is a PM10 precursor. 

The resulting motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for NOX and PM10 may then be 

used to demonstrate transportation 

conformity with the SIP. The EPA is 

proposing approval of this SIP revision 

in accordance with the requirements of 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2015–0227, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: russ.tim@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Russ, Air Program, EPA, Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6479, russ.tim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

SIP revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. 

If EPA receives no adverse comments, 

EPA will not take further action on this 

proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the ADDRESSES

section of this notice. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on a distinct 

provision of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. See the information provided 

in the Direct Final action of the same 

title which is located in the Rules and 

Regulations Section of this Federal 

Register. 

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

Dated: May 1, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11783 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0750; FRL–9927–58– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AQ60 

Reconsideration Petition From Dyno 

Nobel Inc. on the New Source 

Performance Standards Review for 

Nitric Acid Plants; Final Action 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of final action denying 

petition for reconsideration. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
28216 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: This action provides notice 

that on May 11, 2015, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

Administrator, Gina McCarthy, signed a 

letter denying a petition for 

reconsideration of the final New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) for 

Nitric Acid Plants published in the 

Federal Register on August 14, 2012. 

(77 FR 48433) 

DATES: Effective May 18, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Nathan Topham, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (D243–02), Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0483; fax number: (919) 541–3207; 

email address: topham.nathan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

This Federal Register document, the 

petition for reconsideration, and the 

letter denying the petition for 

reconsideration are available in the 

docket the EPA established under 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010– 

0750. All documents in the docket are 

listed on the www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA 

WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. This Federal 

Register document, the petition for 

reconsideration, and the letter denying 

the petition can also be found on the 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/

ttn/oarpg. 

II. Judicial Review 

Any petitions for review of the letter 

and enclosure denying the petition for 

reconsideration described in this 

document must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit by July 17, 2015. 

III. Description of Action 

A. Background 

The initial Nitric Acid Plants NSPS 

were promulgated on December 23, 

1971 (36 FR 24881) and codified at 40 

CFR part 60, subpart G pursuant to 

section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Pursuant to section 111(b)(1)(B) of the 

CAA, we reviewed the NSPS three times 

over the past few decades. Based on the 

results of the third review, which we 

completed in August 2012, we 

determined it was appropriate to revise 

the NSPS. The revised NSPS were 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 14, 2012 (77 FR 48433). The 

revised NSPS (also referred to as the 

‘‘final rule’’ in this document) included 

a change in the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

emission limit, from 3.0 pounds of NOX

per ton of nitric acid production (3.0 lb/ 

T) on a 3-hour basis to 0.5 lb/T on a 30- 

day average basis, and additional testing 

and monitoring requirements. The final 

rule applies to new, modified or 

reconstructed nitric acid production 

units (NAPU) that commence 

construction, modification or 

reconstruction after October 14, 2011. 

Throughout the rulemaking process, 

we received comments, data and 

information that supported these 

revisions. This information is available 

in the docket for this action. The 

revisions were proposed on October 14, 

2011 (76 FR 63878). We received 

additional data and comments during 

the comment period. These data and 

comments were considered and 

analyzed and, where appropriate, 

revisions to the NSPS were made and 

incorporated into the final rule 

published on August 14, 2012. 

On October 10, 2012, Dyno Nobel Inc. 

(DNI) submitted a petition for 

reconsideration of the final rule for 

nitric acid plants. Under section 

307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, a petitioner 

seeking reconsideration must show that 

the objection or objections raised in its 

reconsideration petition ‘‘is of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rule.’’ In 

the EPA’s view, an objection is of 

central relevance to the outcome of the 

rule only if it provides substantial 

support for the argument that the 

promulgated regulation should be 

revised. 

After carefully considering the 

petition and supporting information, the 

EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, 

denied the petition for reconsideration 

on May 11, 2015, in a letter to the 

petitioner. The EPA denied the petition 

because the information and analysis 

submitted by DNI is not of central 

relevance to the outcome of the rule, in 

that it does not demonstrate that the 

rule should be reconsidered. A 

summary of the petition issues and the 

EPA’s responses are provided below. 

The letter from Administrator McCarthy 

and the accompanying enclosure, which 

are available in the docket for this 

action, explain in greater detail the 

issues presented in the petition, the 

EPA’s responses to those issues, and the 

EPA’s reasons for the denial. 

B. Summary of Petition and the EPA’s 

Responses 

The main issues raised by DNI in their 

petition for reconsideration are the 

following: They believe the EPA should 

have established a subcategory and a 

different emissions limit for modified or 

reconstructed nitric acid plants that use 

non-selective catalytic reduction 

(NSCR); and they argue the EPA did not 

meet the legal requirement of having 

representative emission data to establish 

a new emission limit. 

Regarding the petitioner’s argument 

that the EPA should establish a 

subcategory for modified or 

reconstructed plants that use NSCR, we 

have several reasons why we disagree 

with this request. 

First, the EPA believes it is 

inappropriate to establish subcategories 

based on differences in control 

technologies, so it is inappropriate to 

establish a subcategory for plants using 

NSCR. 

Second, regarding the petitioner’s 

argument that the EPA did not meet the 

legal requirement of having 

representative emission data to set an 

emission limit, we believe the agency 

had ample test data to support selective 

catalytic reduction as the best system of 

emission reduction and to establish a 

revised emission limit. 

Third, although some units with 

NSCR may not be able to meet the limit 

without improving their controls, based 

on available data we believe it is 

feasible for some units with NSCR to 

comply with this NSPS without the 

need for any additional controls as some 

existing units with NSCR are already 

achieving the NSPS emission limit. 

Finally, we believe other units with 

NSCR that are modified or 

reconstructed, could comply with the 

NSPS limit by improving their controls 

at reasonable costs. 

Therefore, based on our review and 

evaluation of all issues raised by the 

petitioner and relevant available data 

and information, we have concluded 

that reconsideration is not warranted. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 95 / Monday, May 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 28217 

Dated: May 11, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11958 Filed 5–15–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–BB40 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

Provisions; Fisheries of the 

Northeastern United States; Omnibus 

Amendment To Simplify Vessel 

Baselines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of fishery 

management plan amendment; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery 

Management Councils have submitted 

an Omnibus Amendment to the Fishery 

Management Plans of the Northeastern 

United States to simplify vessel 

baselines. This amendment incorporates 

a draft Environmental Assessment and 

preliminary Regulatory Impact Review, 

for review and approval by the Secretary 

of Commerce, and NMFS is requesting 

comments from the public. The 

Omnibus Amendment to Simplify 

Vessel Baselines would eliminate the 

one-time limit on vessel upgrades and 

remove gross and net tonnages from 

vessel baseline specifications 

considered when determining a vessel’s 

baseline for replacement purposes. 

Implementing these measures would 

reduce the administrative burden to 

permit holders and NMFS, and would 

have little effect on fleet capacity. This 

action would also remove the 

requirement for vessels to send in 

negative fishing reports (i.e., ‘‘did not 

fish’’ reports) during months or weeks 

when fishing did not occur. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 17, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2011–0213, 

by any one of the following methods. 

Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. 

1. Go to www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2011- 

0213, 

2. Click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields 

3. Enter or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter 

‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish 

to remain anonymous). 

Copies of the Omnibus Amendment to 

Simplify Vessel Baselines, and of the 

draft Environmental Assessment and 

preliminary Regulatory Impact Review 

(EA/RIR), are available from the Greater 

Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, 55 

Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 

01930 The EA/RIR is also accessible via 

the Internet at: 

www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Travis Ford, Fishery Policy Analyst, 

978–281–9233. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that 

each Regional Fishery Management 

Council submit any Fishery 

Management Plan (FMP) amendment it 

prepares to NMFS for review and 

approval, disapproval, or partial 

approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act 

also requires that NMFS, upon receiving 

an FMP amendment, immediately 

publish notification in the Federal 

Register that the amendment is 

available for public review and 

comment. The New England Fishery 

Management Council (NEFMC) and the 

Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council (MAFMC) approved this 

Baseline Amendment, which would 

simplify vessel baseline requirements, at 

their November 18, 2014, and October 8, 

2014, meetings, respectively. NMFS 

prepared the amendment on behalf of 

the Councils and declared a transmittal 

date May 12, 2015. Both Councils have 

reviewed the Baseline Amendment 

proposed rule regulations as drafted by 

NMFS and deemed them to be necessary 

and appropriate as specified in section 

303(c) of the MSA. If approved by 

NMFS, this amendment would simplify 

the specifications considered when 

determining a vessel’s baseline for 

replacement purposes developed by the 

MAFMC and NEFMC. 

Background 

The MAFMC developed the first 

limited entry program in 1977 for the 

surfclam/quahog fishery, which 

included restrictions on replacement 

vessels. This program required that a 

replacement vessel be of ‘‘substantially 

similar capacity’’ in an effort to 

maintain and not increase the harvest 

capacity of the fleet at that time. Over 

the following two decades, the MAFMC 

and NEFMC implemented additional 

limited entry programs. By 1998, there 

were four different sets of vessel 

upgrade and replacement restrictions 

among the various FMPs. The upgrade 

restrictions became confusing for fishing 

industry members with more than one 

limited access permit, because each 

permit had the potential to have 

different vessel upgrade regulations 

apply. In addition, some vessels added 

limited access permits to their vessel 

that originally qualified on another 

vessel that was a different size and/or 

horsepower. This results in a vessel 

having multiple baselines. Thus, in 

1999, the MAFMC and NEFMC, in 

consultation with NMFS, developed an 

amendment to Achieve Regulatory 

Consistency on Permit Related 

Provisions for Vessels Issued Limited 

Access Federal Fishery Permits (64 FR 

8263, February 19, 1999) (Consistency 

Amendment) to streamline and make 

consistent baseline provisions and 

upgrade restrictions across FMPs. 

The Consistency Amendment 

standardized definitions and restrictions 

for vessel baselines, upgrades, and 

replacements across all limited access 

fisheries. It simplified regulations for 

vessel replacements, permit transfers, 

and vessel upgrades, making them 

consistent and less restrictive in order to 

facilitate business transactions. 

Although the Consistency Amendment 

did standardize the vessel baseline 

requirements for the fisheries of the 

northeast, some burdensome 

requirements remain. Under current 

restrictions, a vessel baseline is defined 

by vessel length overall, gross tonnage, 

net tonnage, and horsepower. We 

determine the baseline for a limited 

access permit based on the size (length, 

gross tonnage, and net tonnage) and 

horsepower of the first vessel issued a 

limited access permit for that fishery or, 

for fisheries that adopted baseline 

restrictions through the Consistency 

Amendment, the permitted vessel at the 

time the final rule became effective. 

Current baseline regulations require 

that a replacement vessel or an upgrade 

made to an existing vessel with a 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS