Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 44017 

9Memorandum from Leila H. Cook, EPA 

Transportation & Regional Programs Division, to Air 

Program Managers re: Clean Fuel Fleet Program 

Requirements (April 17, 2006). This memorandum 

superseded a July 2, 2004, memorandum from Leila 

H. Cook noting that the Tier 2 standards are 

equivalent to or cleaner than earlier emission levels 

mandated by the CFFP. These memoranda are 

included with the State’s SIP revision in the docket 

for this proposed action. 

10 ‘‘Control of Air Pollution From Motor Vehicles: 

Tier 3 Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 

Standards.’’ See 79 FR 23414 (April 28, 2014). 

11See Table 1 of the Georgia’s January 22, 2015, 

SIP revision. 

12 In its January 22, 2015, SIP revision, GA EPD 

analyzed the annual reports submitted by the fleets 

for the model years 2001–2004 and 2006 to 

determine the number of used vehicles purchased 

and the range of the model years. GA EPD 

determined that 98 percent of the vehicles 

purchased are new. Only 2 percent of vehicles are 

purchased as used. Out of the used vehicles 

purchased, 80 percent are 2004 and newer models. 

As a result, only 0.4 percent of vehicles purchased 

are older than the 2004 model year. 

heavy-duty vehicles and engines.9 The 

memorandum also stated that ‘‘[t]o meet 

the requirements of the Clean Fuel Fleet 

Program fleet managers can be assured 

that vehicles and engines certified to 

current Part 86 emission standards, 

which EPA has determined to be as or 

more stringent than corresponding CFV 

emission standards per the attached 

EPA Dear Manufacturer Letter meet the 

CFV emission standards and the CFFP 

requirements as defined in CFR part 

88.’’ Further reductions from these same 

vehicles will be achieved by EPA’s 

newly promulgated Tier 3 emission 

standards.10

In its SIP submission, GA EPD 

provided an independent analysis of the 

expected emission benefits of Tier 2 and 

heavy-duty engine standards over LEV 

standards.11 According to GA EPD’s 

analysis, Tier 2 NOX standards have a 

benefit over LEV ranging from 0.09 gpm 

to 0.99 gpm on a per vehicle basis. With 

regard to the heavy-duty engine 

standards, GA EPD indicates that there 

is a benefit of 1.4 grams/brake-horse 

power per hour for the combination of 

non-methane hydrocarbons and NOX on 

a per vehicle basis. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that the removal of the Georgia CFFP 

will not interfere with attainment or 

reasonable further progress, or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act 

because the emission reductions that 

were generated by Georgia’s CFFP have 

been overtaken by EPA’s Tier 2 Rule 

and heavy-duty emissions standards. As 

discussed above, the vehicle emissions 

standards referenced in EPA’s April 17, 

2006 memorandum have been fully 

implemented, thus ensuring that all new 

vehicle fleet purchases meet CFV 

standards.12

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Georgia’s 

January 22, 2015, SIP revision and move 

Georgia’s CFFP rules (Georgia Rules 

391–3–22–.01 through .11) from the 

active portion of Georgia SIP to the 

contingency measures portion of 

Georgia’s maintenance plan in the SIP 

for the 1997 Atlanta 8-hour Ozone Area. 

EPA is proposing this approval because 

the Agency has made the preliminarily 

determination that Georgia’s January 22, 

2015, SIP revision is consistent with the 

CAA and EPA’s regulations and 

guidance. 

V. 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. 

See 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 proposed 

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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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, 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 as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: July 14, 2015. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18079 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0407; FRL–9930–80– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; MI, Belding; 2008 

Lead Clean Data Determination 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On May 13, 2015, the 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) submitted a request to 

the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) to make a determination under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the 

Belding nonattainment area has attained 

the 2008 lead (Pb) national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS). In this 

action, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the Belding nonattainment area 

(area) has attained the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

This clean data determination is based 

upon complete, quality-assured and 

certified ambient air monitoring data for 

the 2012–2014 design period showing 

that the area has monitored attainment 

of the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Additionally, as 

a result of this proposed determination, 

EPA is proposing to suspend the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
44018 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

requirements for the area to submit an 

attainment demonstration, together with 

reasonably available control measures, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

and contingency measures for failure to 

meet the RFP plan and attainment 

deadlines for as long as the area 

continues to attain the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before August 24, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0407, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–9401, 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is making a clean data 

determination as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

action is set forth in the direct final rule. 

If no adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

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. For additional 

information, see the direct final rule 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

Dated: July 14, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–18100 Filed 7–23–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS