Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27257 

programs have provisions requiring a 

new or modified source to notify 

neighboring states of the potential 

impacts from the source, consistent with 

the requirements of section 126(a). 

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

federally promulgated rules, 

promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in 

effect in each of these states. EPA has 

delegated the authority to Illinois and 

Minnesota to administer these rules, 

which include provisions related to PSD 

and interstate pollution abatement. A 

final disapproval for Illinois or 

Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP 

requirements will not result in sanctions 

under section 179(a), nor will it obligate 

EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years of final action if the states do not 

submit revisions to their PSD SIPs 

addressing these deficiencies. Instead, 

Illinois and Minnesota are already 

administering the federally promulgated 

PSD regulations. 

VI. 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 approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on Tribal governments or preempt 

Tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: May 2, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11022 Filed 5–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0099; FRL–9910–80– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan and 

Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for 

the Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Nonattainment Area; Enhanced 

Monitoring; Clean Fuel Fleets and 

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to meet 

certain serious area requirements under 

section 182(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 

nonattainment area under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. Further, we are 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

DFW moderate area attainment 

demonstration SIP that address the 

failure-to-attain contingency measures 

and proposing to approve revisions to 

the Texas SIP that address control of air 

pollution from motor vehicles and 

transportation conformity. The EPA is 

proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions because they satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0099, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Carrie Paige at 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, 

Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0099. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email, if you believe that it is CBI or 

otherwise protected from disclosure. 

The http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means that 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 http://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 along with any disk or CD– 

ROM submitted. 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 and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The Federal Surface Transportation 

Reauthorization Act is commonly known as the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU). 

2See 62 FR 38856. In this action we refer to the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard as ‘‘the 1997 ozone 

standard.’’ 

3We refer to the DFW nonattainment area for the 

1997 ozone standard as ‘‘the nine-county 

nonattainment area.’’ The nine-county 

nonattainment area consists of the four core 

counties (Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant) and 

five ‘‘cradle’’ counties. The cradle counties are Ellis, 

Johnson, Kaufman, Parker and Rockwall, and in 

prior SIP actions, we referred to these as ‘‘the five 

new counties.’’ Since these counties are no longer 

new to the nonattainment designation and 

geographically they ‘‘cradle’’ the four core counties, 

we are adopting the term ‘‘cradle’’ herein for ease 

of identification. 

4On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a 

more protective 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 

ppm (73 FR 16436, March 27, 2008). On April 30, 

2012, the EPA promulgated designations under the 

2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012) 

and in that action, the EPA designated Collin, 

Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, 

Rockwall, Tarrant and Wise counties as a moderate 

ozone nonattainment area. The RFP required under 

the 2008 ozone standard must be submitted to EPA 

by July 20, 2015. The submittals under evaluation 

in today’s rulemaking do not specifically address 

the 2008 ozone standard, but will provide progress 

toward this new standard. 

5For additional information on ozone, please 

visit www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone. 

6See also the RFP regulations at 40 CFR 51.910 

and EI regulations at 40 CFR 51.915. 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with the person listed in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L); telephone (214) 665–6521; 

email address paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the EPA proposing? 

II. Background for the Actions Under Section 

182(c) of the CAA (the Serious Area 

Requirements) 

III. Background for the Failure-To-Attain 

Contingency Measures 

IV. Background for the Revisions to Chapter 

114 

V. What are the EPA’s evaluations of these 

revisions? 

VI. Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to approve all 

or parts of six SIP revisions from the 

State of Texas as they relate to certain 

CAA requirements. Our actions fall into 

three categories. First, the EPA is 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

Texas SIP submitted to meet certain 

serious area requirements of section 

182(c) of the Act for the DFW serious 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone standard. Specifically, we are 

proposing to approve the revised 2002 

base year emission inventory (EI), the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

the RFP motor vehicle emission budgets 

(MVEBs) for 2011 and 2012, and the 

RFP contingency provisions. In 

addition, we are proposing to find that 

the State has fulfilled the CAA 

requirements for enhanced ambient 

monitoring and the clean-fuel fleet 

programs (CFFPs). Second, we are 

proposing to approve revisions to the 

DFW SIP’s failure-to-attain contingency 

measures plan for the moderate ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone standard. Third, we are proposing 

to approve revisions to Title 30 of the 

Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 114 

(denoted 30 TAC 114 or Chapter 114) 

pertaining to mobile source control. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

approve revisions that make the Texas 

transportation conformity rules 

consistent with the Federal Surface 

Transportation Reauthorization Act 1

and revisions that add provisions to 

certain sections within the State’s Diesel 

Emissions Reduction Incentive Program 

for On-Road and Non-Road Vehicles 

(DERIP, also often referred to as the 

Texas Emission Reduction Plan or 

TERP). 

II. Background for the Actions Under 

Section 182(c) of the CAA (the Serious 

Area Requirements) 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated 

an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) 2 and on April 30, 

2004, the EPA designated the DFW area 

(consisting of Collin, Dallas, Denton, 

Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, 

Rockwall and Tarrant counties) 3 as a 

moderate nonattainment area under the 

1997 ozone standard with an attainment 

date of June 15, 2010 (see 69 FR 23858 

and 69 FR 23951). However, the DFW 

area failed to attain the 1997 ozone 

standard by June 15, 2010, and was 

consequently reclassified as a serious 

ozone nonattainment area (75 FR 79302, 

December 20, 2010).4 Accordingly, the 

TCEQ was required to submit revisions 

to the DFW SIP to meet serious area 

requirements. In this action, we are 

addressing the serious area RFP plan, 

contingency measures, enhanced 

monitoring and clean fuel fleet 

requirements that were submitted in 

revisions dated January 17, 2012. 

A. Reasonable Further Progress 

The CAA requires that areas 

designated as nonattainment for ozone 

and classified as moderate or worse 

demonstrate RFP in reducing emissions 

of ozone precursors (nitrogen oxides or 

NOX and volatile organic compounds or 

VOCs).5 A RFP plan generally is 

designed to achieve annual progress 

toward meeting the ozone national 

ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) 

through reductions in emissions of NOX

and/or VOCs. On November 29, 2005 

(70 FR 71612) and as revised on June 8, 

2007 (72 FR 31727), EPA published the 

Phase 2 final rule to implement the 1997 

ozone standard that addressed, among 

other things, the RFP control and 

planning obligations as they apply to 

areas designated nonattainment for the 

1997 ozone standard. In the Phase 1 

Rule, RFP was defined in § 51.900(p) as 

meaning for the purposes of the 1997 

ozone standard, the progress reductions 

required under section 172(c)(2) and 

section 182(b)(1) and (c)(2)(B) and 

(c)(2)(C) of the CAA (69 FR 23951, 

23997, April 30, 2004).6 RFP plans must 

also include a MVEB, which provides 

the allowable on-road mobile emissions 

an area can produce and continue to 

demonstrate RFP (57 FR 13498, 13558, 

April 16, 1992). 

The RFP plan for the DFW moderate 

ozone nonattainment area was approved 

on October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58475) and 

it demonstrated required emissions 

reductions through the end of calendar 

year 2008 and MVEBs for 2008. Because 

the area was reclassified to serious, 

pursuant to section 182(c)(2)(B)(i) of the 

Act and 40 CFR 51.910, the RFP SIP for 

the DFW serious ozone nonattainment 

area must demonstrate NOX and/or VOC 

emissions reductions of at least nine 

percent for the calendar years 2009– 

2011 and three percent for 2012. The 

emissions reductions must occur within 

the nine-county nonattainment area. 

B. Contingency Measures 

Pursuant to section 172(c)(9) of the 

Act, RFP plans must include 

contingency measures that will take 

effect without further action by the State 

or EPA, which include additional 

controls that would be implemented if 

the area fails to reach the RFP 

milestones. While the Act does not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27259 

7These contingency measures related to 

Degassing or Cleaning of Stationary, Marine, and 

Transport Vessels and Petroleum Dry Cleaning 

Systems (see the Texas Register, 35 TexReg 4268, 

dated May 21, 2010 and available in the docket for 

this rulemaking). 

8Additional information on the TERP is available 

on the TCEQ Web site at www.tceq.texas.gov/

airquality/terp. In addition, please see our TSD for 

the revisions to 30 TAC 114 (labeled as TSD–B) in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

specify the type of measures or quantity 

of emissions reductions required, EPA 

interprets the Act to mean that 

implementation of these contingency 

measures would provide additional 

emissions reductions of up to 3% of the 

adjusted base year inventory (or a lesser 

percentage that will make up the 

identified shortfall) in the year 

following the RFP milestone year. For 

more information on contingency 

measures, please see the April 16, 1992 

General Preamble (57 FR 13498, 13510) 

and the Phase 2 implementation rule (70 

FR 71612, 71650). 

C. Enhanced Monitoring 

States with serious and worse ozone 

nonattainment areas are required to 

implement, among other things, 

enhanced ambient monitoring, pursuant 

to section 182(c)(1) of the Act. The 

enhanced ambient monitoring identifies 

the magnitude and type of ozone 

precursor emissions in the 

nonattainment area where maximum 

precursor emissions are expected to 

impact (see 71 FR 61236, October 17, 

2006 and 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D). 

D. Clean Fuel Fleet Program 

Section 182(c)(4) of the Act requires 

States have programs to require certain 

fleet operators to include a percentage of 

clean-fuel vehicles in their new fleet 

purchases to reduce emissions of ozone 

precursors. Section 182(c)(4) of the Act 

also allows substitute programs to 

achieve equivalent reductions. (See 59 

FR 50042, September 30, 1994 and 40 

CFR part 88). 

III. Background for the Failure-toAttain Contingency Measures 

Contingency provisions are also 

required for attainment plans and on 

January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903) we 

approved the attainment demonstration 

for the DFW moderate ozone 

nonattainment area, including the 

failure-to-attain contingency plan. In an 

April 6, 2010, SIP revision Texas 

revised its plan by replacing the plan’s 

reliance on offset lithography with fleet 

turnover because offset lithography was 

being implemented in response to EPA’s 

issuance of a control technique 

guideline (CTG). When the DFW area 

was reclassified as a serious ozone 

nonattainment area (75 FR 79302), two 

failure-to-attain contingency measures 

were implemented.7

IV. Background for the Revisions to 

Chapter 114 

A. The Transportation Conformity 

Revisions 

Section 176(c) of the Act requires 

states to submit a transportation 

conformity SIP establishing enforceable 

procedures for making determinations 

that metropolitan transportation plans, 

programs and projects (activities) 

approved by the Federal Highway 

Administration or the Federal Transit 

Administration meet or ‘‘conform to’’ 

the area’s air quality SIP. Transportation 

conformity is a mechanism for ensuring 

that transportation activities are 

reviewed and evaluated for their 

impacts on air quality prior to funding 

or approval. The intent of transportation 

conformity is to ensure that new 

transportation activities do not cause or 

contribute to new violations, increase 

the frequency or severity of any existing 

violations, or delay the timely 

attainment of air quality standards or 

the required interim emissions 

reductions towards attainment. On July 

25, 2007, Texas submitted revisions to 

their transportation conformity 

requirements that are addressed in this 

action. 

B. The Revisions to the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Incentive Program for OnRoad and Non-Road Vehicles 

The Texas SIP includes a variety of 

control strategies to reduce ozone 

precursor emissions in nonattainment 

and near-nonattainment areas, including 

the TERP, a program that provides 

financial incentives to eligible entities 

to reduce emissions from polluting 

vehicles and equipment.8 The basic 

structure of TERP as an economic 

incentive program was approved into 

the SIP on November 14, 2001 (66 FR 

57160). Since then, the TERP has grown 

to offer a variety of grants, including the 

DERIP. The DERIP is designed to offset 

the incremental cost of projects that can 

reduce NOX emissions from heavy duty 

diesel trucks and construction 

equipment in nonattainment areas. This 

is an incentive to owners and operators 

to upgrade their fleets at an expedited 

rate and these upgrades will reduce 

NOX emissions to the atmosphere. The 

EPA approved the DERIP into the Texas 

SIP on August 19, 2005 (70 FR 48647). 

On March 25, 2010 and April 13, 2012, 

Texas submitted revisions to the DERIP 

that are addressed in this action. 

V. What are the EPA’s evaluations of 

these revisions? 

Summaries of our analyses are 

provided in this section. Our detailed 

evaluations are provided in two 

technical support documents (TSDs): 

One addressing the RFP submittal and 

identified as TSD–A; and the other 

focused on the revisions to 30 TAC 114 

and the failure-to-attain contingency 

measures and labeled as TSD–B. These 

TSDs are in the docket for this action. 

A. The DFW RFP SIP Revision 

On January 17, 2012, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) submitted a SIP revision to 

address the RFP requirements for the 

DFW serious ozone nonattainment area. 

The submittal includes a revised 2002 

base year EI for stationary and mobile 

sources, and the RFP plan, which must 

demonstrate NOX and/or VOC emissions 

reductions of at least nine percent for 

2009–2011 and three percent for 2012, 

the RFP MVEBs for 2011 and 2012, and 

RFP contingency measures. 

1. The DFW Base Year Emissions 

Inventory 

The base year EI is the starting point 

for calculating the reductions necessary 

to meet the requirements for RFP. 

Sections 172(c)(3) and 182(b)(1) of the 

CAA require that nonattainment plan 

provisions include an inventory of NOX

and VOC emissions from all sources in 

the nonattainment area. The EPA had 

previously approved the 2002 base year 

inventory (73 FR 58475). Since that 

submittal, more recent data (including, 

for example, actual local activity data 

for 2002) and improvements in methods 

to calculate certain categories within the 

inventory have become available. 

Because of these advances, the TCEQ 

revised the emissions data for the 2002 

base year. We have determined that the 

revised inventory was developed in 

accordance with EPA guidance and 

therefore, we propose to approve the 

revised 2002 base year EI. For reference, 

the previously approved base year EI (73 

FR 58475) is provided in Table 1, 

reported in tons per day (tpd), along 

with the revised 2002 base year EI for 

the DFW area, also reported in tpd. 

Details on how each of the emissions 

categories was revised and emissions 

totals in the various counties are 

included in TSD–A. Details on how 

each of the emissions categories was 

revised is included in TSD–A. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9See www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/

noxsubst.pdf and www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/

memoranda/clarisub.pdf. 

10See footnote 3. 11These are calculated using the revised 2002 

base year EI. For reference, please see the TSD–A. 

TABLE 1—DFW RFP 2002 BASE YEAR EI 

Source type 

NOX VOC 

Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

Previously 

approved 

Revised 

inventory * 

Point ................................................................................................................. 79.25 79.24 26.42 26.43 

Area ................................................................................................................. 37.04 38.63 237.41 247.03 

On-road Mobile ................................................................................................ 356.23 354.01 161.60 139.70 

Non-road Mobile .............................................................................................. 134.67 153.41 119.60 82.05 

Total .......................................................................................................... 607.19 625.29 545.03 495.21 

* Submitted to EPA by the TCEQ on January 17, 2012. 

2. The Adjusted Base Year Inventory 

and RFP Target Levels for 2011 and 

2012 

The 2002 base year EI is the starting 

point for calculating RFP. Section 

182(b)(1)(B) of the Act and 40 CFR 

51.910 require that the base year EI be 

adjusted to exclude certain emissions 

specified in section 182(b)(1)(D) of the 

Act, i.e., the emission reductions 

resulting from the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control Programs (FMVCP) 

promulgated by EPA prior to January 1, 

1990, and the regulation of Reid Vapor 

Pressure promulgated by EPA prior to 

the enactment of the CAA Amendments 

of 1990. The result, after subtracting the 

non-creditable reductions, is the 

‘‘adjusted base year inventory.’’ The 

required RFP target levels and emission 

reductions needed would be calculated 

using the adjusted base year inventory, 

resulting in the target levels of 

emissions for the milestone years, 

which in this case are 2011 and 2012. 

In calculating the RFP target levels, 

section 182(c)(2)(C) of the Act, 40 CFR 

51.910 and EPA’s NOX Substitution 

Guidance 9 allow NOX emissions 

reductions to be substituted for VOC 

controls if such would maximize 

reductions in ozone air pollution. 

Modeling performed by the TCEQ for 

this RFP plan indicates that ozone 

formation in the DFW area is more 

responsive to NOX: For similar 

decreases in NOX (78 tpd) and VOC (80 

tpd), the DFW 8-hour ozone design 

value would be reduced significantly 

more from NOX cuts (¥3.43 ppb) than 

VOC (¥0.12 ppb). As a result, the State 

has chosen to focus on NOX reductions 

to meet the RFP requirements. 

Tables 2 and 3 provide an accounting 

of the required emissions reductions 

through 2008 and 2012, and the target 

emissions levels of NOX and VOC for 

2011 and 2012. For reductions through 

2008 the TCEQ provided NOX

reductions for the four core counties 

and VOC reductions in the five cradle 10

counties (73 FR 58475); we show these 

reductions in Table 2, using the revised 

2002 base year EI. Table 3 shows the 

reductions required through 2011 and 

2012 for the nine-county nonattainment 

area. 

TABLE 2—CALCULATION OF NOX AND VOC REDUCTIONS THROUGH 2008 

[tpd] 11

Description NOX in 4 core 

counties 

VOC in 5 

cradle 

counties 

a. 2002 Emissions Inventory ................................................................................................................................... 486.53 69.08 

b. Non-creditable reductions through 2008 ............................................................................................................. ¥3.09 2.23 

c. 2002 adjusted to 2008 (a–b) ............................................................................................................................... 489.62 66.85 

d. 15% reductions required through 2008 (0.15 × c) .............................................................................................. 73.44 10.03 

TABLE 3—CALCULATION OF NOX AND VOC TARGET LEVELS OF EMISSIONS (TPD) THROUGH 2012 

Description 

9-County area 

NOX VOC 

a. 2002 Emissions Inventory ................................................................................................................................... 625.29 495.21 

b1. Non-creditable reductions, 2002–2011 (FMVCP + RVP) ................................................................................. ¥0.55 17.53 

b2. 15% reductions required through 2008 ............................................................................................................. 73.44 10.03 

b3. 9% reductions required through 2011 ............................................................................................................... 56.33 ........................

c. 2002 Adjusted to 2011 [a¥(b1+b2+b3)], or 2011 Targets ................................................................................. 496.07 467.65 

d1. Non-creditable reductions for 2012 (FMVCP + RVP) ....................................................................................... ¥4.62 ¥4.30 

d2. 3% Reductions required for 2012 ..................................................................................................................... 18.91 ........................

e. 2002 Adjusted to 2012 [c¥(d1+d2)], or 2012 Targets ....................................................................................... 481.78 471.95 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27261 

12The control measures address emissions from 

point, area, and mobile (non-road and on-road) 

sources and are listed in our TSD–A. 

3. The 2011 and 2012 Projected 

Emissions Inventories and How the 

Required Emissions Reductions Are 

Achieved 

Section 182(b)(1)(A) of the Act 

requires that States provide sufficient 

control measures in their RFP plans to 

offset growth in emissions. To do this, 

the State must estimate the amount of 

growth that will occur between 2002 

and the end of 2011 and 2012. 

Generally, the State followed our 

guidelines in estimating the growth in 

emissions. The projections of growth are 

labeled as the ‘‘Uncontrolled 

Inventories’’ for 2011 and 2012. Our 

detailed evaluation is provided in our 

TSD–A. 

Texas estimated emission reductions 

from State and federal control measures 

in place between 2002 and the end of 

2011 and 2012,12 and applied these 

reductions to the appropriate 

uncontrolled inventories; the results are 

the ‘‘Controlled Inventories’’ for 2011 

and 2012. The total amount of VOC and 

NOX emissions in the controlled 

inventories for 2011 and 2012 must be 

equal to or less than the corresponding 

total target inventories to demonstrate 

RFP. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR DFW THROUGH 2011 

[tpd] 

Inventory NOX VOC 

2011 Targets ............................................................................................................................................................ 496.07 467.65 

2011 Uncontrolled Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 1168.59 823.46 

Projected Emission Reductions through 2011 ........................................................................................................ 759.79 283.01 

2011 Projected Emissions after RFP Reductions ................................................................................................... 408.80 540.45 

Surplus (+)/Shortfall (¥) .......................................................................................................................................... +87.27 ¥72.80 

Is RFP Met? (Surplus greater than Shortfall) .......................................................................................................... Yes Yes. 

In Table 4, we see that the plan shows 

a surplus of NOX emission reductions 

and a shortfall in the required VOC 

reductions. The NOX surplus of 87.27 

tpd is approximately 18% more 

reductions than necessary to meet the 

target of 496.07 tpd. The VOC shortfall 

of 72.80 tpd is approximately 16% less 

reductions than necessary to meet the 

target of 467.65 tpd. The shortfall in 

VOC reductions is apparently due to 

growth in VOC emissions. The Table 

shows Texas has offset this growth in 

VOC emissions with additional NOX

reductions on a percentage basis (i.e., 

1% NOX reductions offsets 1% VOC 

growth). In the RFP submittal, Texas 

notes they are ‘‘reserving’’ 77.29 tpd of 

the surplus NOX reductions 

(approximately 16%) to offset the VOC 

shortfall. Because Texas has offset the 

VOC growth plus provided the 

necessary RFP NOX reductions, the EPA 

is proposing that the emissions 

reductions projected for 2011 are 

sufficient to meet the 2011 targets. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR DFW THROUGH 2012 

[tpd] 

Inventory NOX VOC 

2012 Targets ............................................................................................................................................................ 481.78 471.95 

2012 Uncontrolled Emissions .................................................................................................................................. 1194.94 846.38 

Projected Emission Reductions through 2012 ........................................................................................................ 815.86 313.88 

2012 Projected Emissions after RFP Reductions ................................................................................................... 379.08 532.50 

Surplus (+)/Shortfall (¥) .......................................................................................................................................... +102.70 ¥60.55 

Is RFP Met? (Surplus greater than Shortfall) .......................................................................................................... Yes Yes. 

In Table 5, again we see a surplus of 

NOX reductions necessary to offset a 

shortfall in VOC reductions. The NOX

surplus of 102.70 tpd is approximately 

21% greater than necessary to meet the 

target of 481.78 tpd. The VOC shortfall 

of 60.55 tpd is approximately 13% less 

than necessary to meet the target of 

471.95 tpd. The NOX surplus again is 

greater than the VOC shortfall. In the 

RFP submittal, Texas notes they are 

‘‘reserving’’ 61.86 tpd of the surplus 

NOX reductions (approximately 13%) to 

compensate for the VOC shortfall. 

Because Texas has offset the VOC 

growth and provided the necessary RFP 

NOX reductions, EPA is proposing that 

the emissions reductions projected for 

2012 are sufficient to meet the 2012 

targets. 

4. The RFP Contingency Measures 

The 1997 8-hour ozone RFP plan for 

a serious nonattainment area must 

include contingency measures, which 

are additional controls to be 

implemented if the area fails to make 

reasonable further progress. 

Contingency measures are intended to 

achieve reductions over and beyond 

those relied on in the RFP 

demonstration and could include 

federal and State measures already 

scheduled for implementation. The 

CAA does not preclude a State from 

implementing such measures before 

they are triggered. Texas used federal 

and State measures currently being 

implemented to meet the contingency 

measure requirement for the DFW RFP 

SIP. These measures provide reductions 

between 2012 and 2013 that are in 

excess of those needed for RFP. As 

shown in Table 6, the excess reductions 

are greater than 3% of the adjusted base 

year inventory. We are proposing that 

these reductions are sufficient as RFP 

contingency measures. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13Annual revisions to the air monitoring network 

plan (AMNP) are provided to the EPA for approval 

and the most recently approved AMNP is in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

14Carbonyl compounds are organic compounds, 

consisting of a carbon atom double bonded to an 

oxygen atom. The PAMS measures the three 

carbonyls formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acetone. 

Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde have been found 

to be very important in the formation of groundlevel ozone. 

15See the Texas 2012 Annual AMNP documents 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

16See EPA Dear Manufacturer Letter CCD–05 

(LDV/LDT/MDPV/HDV/HDE/LD–FC), July 21, 2005, 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF RFP DEMONSTRATION FOR DFW, CONTINGENCY MEASURES

[tpd] 

Description NOX VOC 

2002 Emission Inventory adjusted to 2012 ............................................................................................................. 630.46 481.97 

3% needed for contingency (630.46 x 0.03) ........................................................................................................... 18.91 0.00 

Total RFP contingency reductions available ........................................................................................................... 24.44 15.62 

Is the contingency measure requirement met? Yes Yes. 

5. The Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets 

(MVEBs) 

The RFP plan must include a MVEB 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

The MVEB is the mechanism to ensure 

that future transportation activities will 

not produce new air quality violations, 

worsen existing violations, delay 

reaching RFP milestones, or delay 

timely attainment of the NAAQS. A 

MVEB establishes the maximum amount 

of emissions allowed in the SIP for onroad motor vehicles. 

On January 17, 2012, the TCEQ 

submitted its RFP SIP, which contains 

VOC and NOX MVEBs for 2011 and 

2012; these budgets are provided in 

Table 7. We found the RFP MVEBs (also 

termed transportation conformity 

budgets) adequate and on February 27, 

2012, the availability of these budgets 

was posted on our Web site for the 

purpose of soliciting public comments. 

The comment period closed on March 

28, 2012, and we received no comments. 

On February 1, 2013, we published the 

Notice of Adequacy Determination for 

these RFP MVEBs (78 FR 7429). Once 

determined adequate, these RFP budgets 

must be used in future DFW 

transportation conformity 

determinations. The adequacy 

determination represents a preliminary 

finding by EPA of the acceptability of 

the MVEB. Today we are proposing that 

the MVEBs are fully consistent with 

RFP, and we are proposing to approve 

the RFP plan, as it sets the allowable onroad mobile emissions the DFW area 

can produce and continue to 

demonstrate RFP. 

TABLE 7—RFP MOTOR VEHICLE EMISSIONS BUDGETS FOR DFW 

[tpd] 

Year NOX VOC 

2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 197.05 89.54 

2012 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 195.39 82.20 

B. The Requirement To Address 

Enhanced Ambient Monitoring 

Section 182(c)(1) of the CAA requires 

that States with serious and worse 

nonattainment areas adopt and 

implement a program to improve air 

monitoring for ambient concentrations 

of ozone, NOX and VOC. The State 

established an enhanced ambient air 

quality monitoring network in the form 

of the Photochemical Assessment 

Monitoring Stations (PAMS), which was 

approved into the Texas SIP on October 

4, 1994 (59 FR 50502).13 On January 17, 

2012, the TCEQ submitted an 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

that in part demonstrated that by 2012, 

the DFW area would meet the serious 

nonattainment area requirement for 

enhanced monitoring. The submittal 

stated that the enhanced monitoring 

would be in place by the attainment 

deadline of June 15, 2013. In 2012, the 

air monitor at the Dallas Hinton site was 

enhanced to add carbonyl 14

measurements. These air monitoring 

improvements are consistent with 

section 182(c)(1) of the CAA, the 

Revisions to the Ambient Air 

Monitoring Regulations at 71 FR 61236 

and 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D. The 

2012 monitoring update is documented 

in the State’s air monitoring network 

plan, provided in the docket for this 

rulemaking.15 We are proposing to 

approve that portion of the submittal 

that addresses the requirements of 

section 182(c)(1) of the CAA for the 

nine-county nonattainment area. 

C. The Requirement To Address CleanFuel Fleet Programs 

Section 182(c)(4) of the CAA requires 

that states with serious and worse 

nonattainment areas implement federal 

CFFPs. Section 182(c)(4) also allows 

states to implement substitute programs 

whose long term emissions reductions 

are equal to or greater than the federal 

CFFPs. Texas submitted a substitute 

program (which included the Texas 

Clean Fleet or TCF Program) that we 

approved on February 7, 2001 (66 FR 

9203). In addition to TCF Program of 

fleet measures, this substitute program 

included substitute stationary source 

measures. In a subsequent revision to 

the TCF program, we approved on 

January 31, 2014 (79 FR 5287), TCEQ 

repealed their TCF program. In the 

attainment demonstration SIP revision 

submitted on January 17, 2012, Texas 

cited an EPA determination 16 that, 

beginning with the 2007 model years, 

both the Tier 2 conventional vehicle and 

engine standards and heavy-duty 

vehicle and engine standards are either 

equivalent to or more stringent than the 

applicable clean fuel vehicle program 

low emission vehicle (LEV) standards. 

In our January 31, 2014 approval action, 

we explain that because 2007 model 

year Heavy Duty Diesel and Tier II 

vehicle meet or exceed the LEV 

standards and because Texas’ substitute 

measures are still in place, Texas 

continues to meet the Federal CFFP 

requirements. We are confirming in 

today’s action that this serious area 

requirement is met for the DFW area. 

We are proposing to approve that 

portion of the submittal that addresses 

the requirements of section 182(c)(4) of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 27263 

17The EPA’s EIP Guidance is available at 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eipfin.pdf. 

the CAA for the nine-county 

nonattainment area. 

D. Revisions to the Failure-To-Attain 

Contingency Measures 

Section 172(c)(9) of the Act requires 

nonattainment SIPs to provide for a 

contingency plan that will take effect 

without further action by the State or 

EPA if an area fails to make reasonable 

further progress or fails to attain the 

standard by the applicable date. On 

January 14, 2009, the EPA approved the 

State’s attainment demonstration for the 

DFW moderate ozone nonattainment 

area for the 1997 ozone standard, which 

included a contingency plan (74 FR 

1903). On April 6, 2010, the TCEQ 

submitted revisions that address, among 

other things, the failure-to-attain 

contingency measures in the DFW 

moderate ozone nonattainment area. In 

this SIP revision, we are acting on only 

the revisions addressing the failure-toattain contingency measures in the DFW 

nonattainment area, which remove 

offset lithographic printing at 30 TAC 

115.449(c) as a contingency measure 

and substitute surplus emissions 

reductions from fleet turnover. This 

revision is necessary because EPA 

issued a CTG in 2006 for offset 

lithographic printing, requiring states to 

update their rules consistent with the 

requirements of the CTG. Therefore, 

when Texas responded to the CTG with 

rulemaking for this source category, it 

also ‘‘back-filled’’ this contingency 

measure. 

Our detailed evaluation is provided in 

the TSD–B. The surplus reductions from 

fleet turnover are sufficient to make up 

the loss of offset lithographic printing as 

a contingency measure and meet the 

requirements for a contingency measure 

under sections 172 and 182 of the CAA. 

See 57 FR 13498, 13510; and 70 FR 

71612, 71651. We are proposing 

approval of this revision. It should be 

noted that this proposed approval 

comes after the fact of implementation 

of the other contingency measures relied 

upon in this moderate area contingency 

plan. Our proposed approval recognizes 

that these measures met the Act’s 

requirements. As discussed above, the 

State adopted a serious area plan with 

its own contingency measures. 

E. Revisions to Chapter 114 

As noted earlier, we are also 

evaluating three Texas SIP submittals 

that revise 30 TAC 114, which addresses 

control of air pollution from motor 

vehicles. These submittals include 

programs or measures that assist in 

reducing ozone precursor emissions and 

may be implemented in the DFW area. 

1. The Texas Transportation Conformity 

Rules 

Transportation conformity is required 

by section 176(c) of the Act. The Texas 

SIP has included transportation 

conformity provisions since November 

8, 1995 (60 FR 56244) and EPA most 

recently approved revisions to these 

provisions on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 

38776). On July 25, 2007, the TCEQ 

submitted a SIP revision to make the 

Texas transportation conformity rules at 

30 TAC 114.260 consistent with the 

Federal Surface Transportation 

Reauthorization Act, commonly known 

as the SAFETEA–LU, which was 

enacted by Congress on August 10, 2005 

(Pub. L. 109–59). The July 25, 2007 

revision also addresses certain federal 

requirements relating to PM2.5

precursors and when they apply in 

conformity determinations, pursuant to 

40 CFR 93.102 (see also 70 FR 24280, 

May 6, 2005), and repeals the 

requirement to perform quantitative PM 

hotspot analyses, pursuant to 40 CFR 

93.116 and 93.123 (see also 71 FR 

12468, March 10, 2006). A line-by-line 

description of the revisions and our 

evaluation are provided in the TSD–B. 

These revisions are consistent with the 

transportation planning rules at 23 CFR 

Part 450, the conformity rules at 40 CFR 

Part 93 and EPA’s guidance. We are 

proposing approval of these revisions. 

2. The State’s Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Incentive Program (DERIP) 

The DERIP is an economic incentive 

program that is part of the State’s TERP 

program that provides financial 

incentives to eligible individuals, 

businesses, and local governments to 

reduce emissions from polluting 

vehicles and equipment. On March 25, 

2010, and April 13, 2012, the TCEQ 

submitted SIP revisions that address the 

DERIP at Chapter 114, Subchapter K 

(Mobile Source Incentive Programs), 

Division 3 (Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Incentive Program for On-Road and 

Non-Road Vehicles). The March 25, 

2010, submission adds stationary 

engines to the DERIP and provides an 

allowance for projects involving nonroad equipment used for natural gas 

recovery purposes. The April 13, 2012, 

revision adds incentive program 

requirements that include, but are not 

limited to, the period of commitment by 

a grant recipient for use of the grantfunded vehicles, requirements on the 

ownership or lease of the vehicles being 

replaced, and destruction of the vehicles 

and engines being replaced. A line-byline description of the revisions and our 

evaluation are provided in the TSD–B. 

These revisions are consistent with 

EPA’s Economic Incentive Program 

(EIP) Guidance.17 The revisions provide 

emissions reductions in Texas, 

primarily in nonattainment areas and as 

such, would not interfere with any 

applicable requirement regarding 

attainment and RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. We 

are proposing approval of these 

revisions. 

VI. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Texas SIP to meet RFP 

and certain other requirements of the 

CAA for the DFW serious nonattainment 

area under the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to fully approve the TCEQ’s 

January 17, 2012 RFP submittal that 

revises the 2002 base year EI, the RFP 

plan, the 2011 and 2012 MVEBs, and 

the contingency measures associated 

with the DFW RFP SIP. The EPA is also 

proposing to approve the portions of the 

TCEQ’s January 17, 2012 attainment 

demonstration submittal that address 

the CAA requirements for enhanced 

ambient monitoring and the CFFPs in 

the DFW serious nonattainment area 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

We are also proposing to approve the 

portion of the TCEQ’s April 6, 2010 

submittal that revises the DFW 

moderate attainment demonstration 

SIP’s failure-to-attain contingency 

measures plan. Finally, we are also 

proposing to fully approve the July 25, 

2007, March 25, 2010, and April 13, 

2012 submittals to the Texas SIP that 

address control of air pollution from 

motor vehicles and transportation 

conformity rules at 30 TAC 114.260, 30 

TAC 114.620, and 30 TAC 114.622. The 

EPA is proposing to approve these SIP 

revisions because they satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the CAA and the federal 

transportation rules. 

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 

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 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 action: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 92 / Tuesday, May 13, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: April 24, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10969 Filed 5–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–7771] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations for Mercer County, 

North Dakota and Incorporated Areas 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning proposed flood 

elevation determinations for Mercer 

County, North Dakota and Incorporated 

Areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: The notice of 

proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on 

May 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at 500 C St. SW., 

Washington, DC 20472. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

17, 2008, FEMA published a proposed 

rulemaking at 73 FR 20890, proposing 

flood elevation determinations along 

multiple flooding sources in Mercer 

County, North Dakota. FEMA is 

withdrawing the proposed rulemaking 

in order to provide the Expanded 

Appeals Process to each of the 

communities that have Special Flood 

Hazard Areas within Mercer County, 

North Dakota and Incorporated Areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. 

Dated: April 25, 2014. 

Roy E. Wright, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11003 Filed 5–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1151] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations for Mercer County, 

North Dakota and Incorporated Areas 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is 

withdrawing its notice of proposed 

rulemaking concerning proposed flood 

elevation determinations for Mercer 

County, North Dakota and Incorporated 

Areas. 

DATES: Effective Date: The notice of 

proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on 

May 13, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

withdrawn rulemaking is available for 

inspection or copying at 500 C St. SW., 

Washington, DC 20472. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (email) 

Luis.Rodriguez3@fema.dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 13, 2010, FEMA published a 

proposed rulemaking at 75 FR 62751, 

proposing flood elevation 

determinations along multiple flooding 

sources in Mercer County, North 

Dakota. FEMA is withdrawing the 

proposed rulemaking in order to 

provide the Expanded Appeals Process 

to each of the communities that have 

Special Flood Hazard Areas within 

Mercer County, North Dakota and 

Incorporated Areas. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4. 

Dated: April 25, 2014. 

Roy E. Wright, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11004 Filed 5–12–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS