49970 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use because it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866 and is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves the Captain of the Port 

Ohio Valley establishing a special local 

regulation for all waters of the 

Tennessee River beginning at mile 

marker 463.0 and ending at mile marker 

467.0 to provide safety for the 

approximately 2,500 swimmers that will 

be racing in the ‘‘Ironman Chattanooga.’’ 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(h) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows: 

PART 100—REGATTAS AND MARINE 

PARADES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233. 

■ 2. A new temporary § 100.35T08–0011 

is added to read as follows: 

§ 100.35T08–0011 Special Local 

Regulation; Tennessee River Mile 463.0 to 

467.0, Chattanooga, TN. 

(a) Location of Regulated Area. All 

waters of the Tennessee River beginning 

at mile marker 463.0 and ending at mile 

marker 467.0. 

(b) Enforcement Period. This rule will 

be enforced from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 

on September 27, 2015. The Captain of 

the Port Ohio Valley or a designated 

representative will inform the public 

through broadcast notice to mariners of 

the enforcement period for the special 

local regulation. 

(c) Special Local Regulations. (1) The 

general regulations contained in 33 CFR 

100.35 as well as the regulations in this 

section apply to the Regulated Area. 

(2) Entry into the Regulated Area is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a 

designated representative. 

(3) Persons or vessels requiring entry 

into or passage through the Regulated 

Area must request permission from the 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or a 

designated representative. U.S. Coast 

Guard Sector Ohio Valley may be 

contacted on VHF Channel 13 or 16, or 

at 1–800–253–7465. 

(4) All persons and vessels shall 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port Ohio Valley and 

designated U.S. Coast Guard patrol 

personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard 

patrol personnel include commissioned, 

warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. 

Coast Guard. 

Dated: July 29, 2015. 

R.V. Timme, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Ohio Valley. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20403 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0259; FRL–9932–33– 

Region 6] 

Clean Air Act Redesignation Substitute 

for the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 

1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; 

Texas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

redesignation substitute demonstration 

provided by the State of Texas that the 

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria 1-hour 

ozone nonattainment area (HGB area) 

has attained the revoked 1-hour ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions, and 

that it will maintain that NAAQS for ten 

years from the date of the EPA’s 

approval of this demonstration. Final 

approval of the redesignation substitute 

demonstration will result in the State no 

longer being required to adopt any 

additional applicable 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS requirements for the area which 

have not already been approved into the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). In 

addition, final approval will allow 

Texas to seek to revise the Texas SIP to 

remove anti-backsliding measures from 

the active portion of its SIP if it can 

demonstrate, pursuant to Clean Air Act 

(CAA) section 110(1), that such revision 

would not interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of any applicable NAAQS, 

or any other requirement of the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 17, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2014–0259, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Tracie Donaldson at 

Donaldson.tracie@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Ms. Mary Stanton, 

Chief, Air State and Tribal Operations 

Section (6PD–S), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0259. 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49971 

1Subsequently, we lowered the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS to 0.075 ppm and classified the Houston 

area as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008); 

77 FR 30088 30089 (May 21, 2012). This rulemaking 

does not address the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

2As of April 6, 2015, 40 CFR 51.900(f) was 

replaced by 40 CFR 51.1100(o). See 40 CFR 51.919 

and 80 FR 12312, Mar. 6, 2015. 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 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. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

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). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracie Donaldson, (214) 665–6633, 

Donaldson.tracie@epa.gov. To inspect 

the hard copy materials, please contact 

Ms. Donaldson. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

In 1979, under section 109 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA established 

primary and secondary NAAQS for 

ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) 

averaged over a 1-hour period (44 FR 

8202, February 8, 1979). Primary 

standards are set to protect human 

health while secondary standards are set 

to protect public welfare. In 1997 we 

revised the primary and secondary 

NAAQS for ozone to set the acceptable 

level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 

ppm, averaged over an 8-hour period 

(62 FR 38856, July 18, 1997).1 In 2008 

we further revised the primary and 

secondary ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm, 

averaged over an 8-hour period (73 FR 

16436, March 27, 2008). Ozone 

nonattainment areas are classified based 

on the severity of their ozone levels 

based on the area’s ‘‘design value’’ (77 

FR 30088, 30091, May 21, 2012). The 

design value represents air quality in 

the area for the most recent 3 years. The 

possible classifications are Marginal, 

Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme. 

Nonattainment areas with a ‘‘lower’’ 

classification have ozone levels that are 

closer to the NAAQS than areas with a 

‘‘higher’’ classification. 

In 2004 we published a first phase 

rule governing implementation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 

Rule) (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004). The 

Phase 1 Rule revoked the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS and provided that 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas are required to 

adopt and implement ‘‘applicable 

requirements’’ according to the area’s 

classification under the 1-hour ozone 

standard for anti-backsliding purposes 

(40 CFR 51.905(a)(i)). In a revision to the 

Phase 1 Rule, we determined that an 

area’s 1-hour designation and 

classification as of June 15, 2005 would 

dictate what 1-hour obligations 

constitute ‘‘applicable requirements’’ 

(40 CFR 51.900(f), May 26, 2005, 70 FR 

30592).2 Applicable anti-backsliding 

requirements ensure continued 

momentum toward reducing ozone 

levels (80 FR 12264, 12297, March 6, 

2015). The rules governing ongoing 

implementation of revoked ozone 

standards, including revisions to 

applicable requirements, was further 

revised effective April 6, 2015 (40 CFR 

51.1100, March 6, 2015, 80 FR 12264). 

This final rule also contains provisions 

addressing a redesignation substitute for 

a revoked ozone standard. See 40 CFR 

51.1105(b). 

The final rule for implementing the 

2008 ozone NAAQS provides that an 

area will be subject to the antibacksliding obligations for a revoked 

NAAQS until we approve (1) a 

redesignation to attainment for the area 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or (2) a 

demonstration for the area in a 

redesignation substitute procedure for a 

revoked NAAQS (40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). 

As explained more fully in the 

preambles to the proposed and final 

rules, the redesignation substitute 

demonstration must show that the area 

(1) has attained that revoked NAAQS 

due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions and (2) will 

maintain that revoked NAAQS for 10 

years from the date of EPA’s approval of 

the showing. The rule also provides that 

if, after notice and comment 

rulemaking, we approve a redesignation 

substitute for a revoked NAAQS, the 

state may request that provisions for 

nonattainment new source review (NSR) 

for that revoked NAAQS be removed, 

and that other anti-backsliding 

obligations for that revoked NAAQS be 

shifted to contingency measures 

provided that such action is consistent 

with CAA sections 110(l) and 193 (40 

CFR 51.1105(b)(2)). 

The HGB area consists of Brazoria, 

Chambers, Fort Bend, Galveston, Harris, 

Liberty, Montgomery and Waller 

counties in Texas. Under the 1990 CAA 

Amendments the area was classified as 

a Severe ozone nonattainment area for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (November 6, 

1991, 56 FR 56694 and CAA section 

181(a)(1)). We approved a 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration for the area 

(71 FR 52670, September 6, 2006). 

However, the EPA subsequently 

determined that the area failed to attain 

the 1-hour ozone standard by its 

applicable attainment date of November 

15, 2007 (June 19, 2012, 77 FR 36400). 

As discussed below, ambient air quality 

monitoring data for ozone indicates that 

the area is now attaining the 1-hour 

ozone standard. 

Texas provided the ‘‘Redesignation 

Substitute Report for the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria One-Hour Standard 

Nonattainment Area’’ (redesignation 

substitute report) to EPA on July 22, 

2014. This report was developed 

consistent with the redesignation 

substitute option we proposed to create 

in our June 6, 2013 proposal (which was 

subsequently adopted in the March 6, 

2015 final rule). The report is available 

through www.regulations.gov (e-docket 

EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0259). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49972 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of the Houston 

Redesignation Substitute Report 

To determine whether we should 

approve the 1-hour ozone redesignation 

substitute for the HGB area we 

evaluated the redesignation substitute 

report provided by Texas and the 

ambient ozone data for the area in the 

EPA Air Quality System (AQS) 

database. To evaluate the report we used 

the applicable portions of our 

September 4, 1992 memo ‘‘Procedures 

for Processing Requests to Redesignate 

Areas to Attainment’’ (www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

oarpg/t5/memoranda/

redesignmem090492.pdf). A detailed 

discussion of our evaluation can be 

found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this action. The 

TSD can be accessed through 

www.regulations.gov (e-docket EPA– 

R06–OAR–2014–0259). 

A. Has the area attained the revoked 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS due to permanent 

and enforceable emission reductions? 

Ambient air quality found in the AQS 

database shows that the HGB area 

attained the 1-hour ozone standard at 

the end of 2013 and maintained the 

standard the following year (Table 1). 

The area continues to maintain the 1- 

hour ozone standard so far in 2015 

based on available data. 

TABLE 1—1-HOUR DESIGN VALUES

FOR THE HGB AREA

[2011–2013 and 2012–2014] 

Years 1-Hour ozone design value 

2011–2013 ..... 0.12 ppm (121 parts per billion). 

TABLE 1—1-HOUR DESIGN VALUES

FOR THE HGB AREA—Continued 

[2011–2013 and 2012–2014] 

Years 1-Hour ozone design value 

2012–2014 ..... 0.11 ppm (111 parts per billion). 

Preliminary 

2013–2015.

0.11 ppm (107 parts per billion). 

In 2013, all monitors in the HGB area 

had expected exceedances less than the 

threshold of 1.0 per year and only one 

monitor in the HGB area, the Houston 

East monitor (C1), had more than 1.0 

expected exceedance in 2011 and 2012. 

A more detailed table of expected 1- 

hour ozone exceedances for the HGB 

monitors based on ozone data can be 

found in the TSD. 

The HGB area redesignation substitute 

report provides information on 

emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and 

regulations that reduced these 

emissions. NOX and VOCs are ozone 

precursors. Texas identified control 

measures for both the 1-hour ozone 

attainment demonstration SIP and the 

1997 ozone attainment demonstration 

SIP that led to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. The 1- 

hour ozone attainment demonstration 

SIP was approved on September 6, 2006 

(71 FR 52670). The 1997 ozone 

attainment demonstration SIP was 

approved on January 2, 2014 (79 FR 57). 

Additionally, we have approved SIPs for 

the HGB area that document continuous 

emissions reductions due to permanent 

and enforceable measures for the 1-hour 

and 1997 8-hour ozone standards (70 FR 

7407, February 14, 2005; 74 FR 18298, 

April 22, 2009; 79 FR 51, January 2, 

2014). Given our previous actions 

approving Texas SIPs pertaining to 

permanent and enforceable measures, 

we agree with Texas’ conclusion that 

the area has attained the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS due to permanent and 

enforceable emission reductions. More 

detail on our review can be found in the 

TSD. 

B. Will the area maintain the revoked 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS for 10 years from 

the date of our approval? 

To demonstrate that the HGB area will 

maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for 10 years from the date of 

our approval of the redesignation 

substitute, the Texas report provided 

information on projected emissions of 

ozone precursors (Tables 2 and 3). The 

emission projections show that (1) NOx 

emissions will continue to decrease 

through 2026 and (2) VOC emissions 

will decrease through 2023 and increase 

by 2.71 tons per year (tpy) from 2023 to 

2026 (514.49 tpy in 2023 to 517.20 tpy 

in 2026, an increase of 0.5%). We 

reviewed this information and agree 

with the conclusion that the area will 

maintain the revoked 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS for 10 years from the date of 

our approval. Based on photochemical 

modeling analyses showing that the 

formation of ozone in the HGB area is 

more sensitive to NOX than to VOC 

emissions, the small increase in VOC 

emissions during the 10-year 

maintenance period is expected to be 

more than offset by the 18% decrease in 

NOX emissions during this same period. 

More detail on our review can be found 

in the TSD. 

TABLE 2—NOX EMISSION PROJECTIONS

[tons per day] 

Category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 

Point Sources ........................................................................................... 108.48 126.31 126.82 127.01 127.20 127.39 

Area Sources ........................................................................................... 21.15 22.19 22.90 23.28 23.17 23.23 

On-Road Mobile Sources ........................................................................ 181.28 127.70 88.85 69.80 59.28 54.51 

Non-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 121.11 106.99 94.99 83.70 75.54 68.98 

Total .................................................................................................. 432.02 383.19 333.56 303.79 285.19 274.11 

TABLE 3—VOC EMISSION PROJECTIONS

[tons per day] 

Category 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 

Point Sources ........................................................................................... 96.11 100.81 102.86 103.29 103.71 104.12 

Area Sources ........................................................................................... 308.74 321.92 332.43 339.67 342.58 346.13 

On-Road Mobile Sources ........................................................................ 80.92 60.43 46.51 40.51 38.09 36.93 

Non-Road Mobile Sources ....................................................................... 49.92 38.33 33.34 30.86 30.11 30.02 

Total .................................................................................................. 535.69 521.49 515.14 514.33 514.49 517.20 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 159 / Tuesday, August 18, 2015 / Proposed Rules 49973 

III. Proposed Action 

Based on the CAA’s criteria for 

redesignation to attainment (CAA 

section 107(d)(3)(E)) and the regulation 

providing for a redesignation substitute 

(40 CFR 51.1105(b)), EPA is proposing 

to find that Texas has successfully 

demonstrated it has met the 

requirements for approval of a 

redesignation substitute for the revoked 

1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS. We are 

proposing to approve the redesignation 

substitute for the HGB area based on our 

determination that the demonstration 

provided by the State of Texas shows 

that the HGB area has attained the 

revoked 1-hour ozone NAAQS due to 

permanent and enforceable emission 

reductions, and that it will maintain 

that NAAQS for ten years from the date 

of the EPA’s approval of this 

demonstration. As we no longer 

redesignate nonattainment areas to 

attainment for the revoked 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS, approval of the demonstration 

would serve as a redesignation 

substitute under the EPA’s 

implementing regulations. Under this 

proposed action, Texas would no longer 

be required to adopt any additional 

applicable 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

requirements for the area which have 

not already been approved into the SIP 

(40 CFR 51.1105(b)(1)). If this proposed 

action is finalized, it would also allow 

the state to request that the EPA approve 

the removal or revision of the 1-hour 

ozone NAAQS nonattainment NSR 

provisions in the SIP and, upon a 

showing of consistency with the antibacksliding checks in CAA sections 

110(1) and 193 (if applicable), shift 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS requirements that 

are contained in the active portion of 

the SIP to the contingency measures 

portion of the SIP (40 CFR 

51.1105(b)(2)). We note that because the 

HGB area was classified as Severe 

nonattainment for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS, the Severe classification NSR 

requirements would continue to apply if 

the 1-hour NSR provisions are removed 

(October 1, 2008, 73 FR 56983). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

For this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely proposes 

to approve a demonstration provided by 

the State of Texas and find that the HGB 

area is no longer subject to the antibacksliding obligations for additional 

measures for the revoked 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS; and imposes no additional 

requirements. Accordingly, I certify that 

this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

proposed rule does not impose any 

additional enforceable duties, it 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). This proposed rule also 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will 

it have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to approve a demonstration 

provided by the State of Texas and find 

that the HGB area is no longer subject 

to the anti-backsliding obligations for 

additional measures for the revoked 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS; and does not alter 

the relationship or the distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

in the CAA. This proposed rule also is 

not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 

FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is 

not economically significant. 

The proposed rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Additionally, this proposed rule does 

not involve establishment of technical 

standards, and thus, the requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not 

apply. 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. EPA 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it does 

not affect the level of protection 

provided to human health or the 

environment. The rulemaking does not 

affect the level of protection provided to 

human health or the environment 

because approving the demonstration 

provided by Texas and finding that the 

HGB area is no longer subject to the 

anti-backsliding obligations for 

additional measures for the revoked 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS does not alter the 

emission reduction measures that are 

required to be implemented in the HGB 

area, which was classified as Severe 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. See 73 FR 56983, 

October 1, 2008, and 40 CFR 51.1105. 

Additionally, the proposed rule is not 

an economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Ozone. 

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

Dated: July 29, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20024 Filed 8–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 409, 424, and 484 

[CMS–1625–CN2] 

RIN 0938–AS46 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; CY 

2016 Home Health Prospective 

Payment System Rate Update; Home 

Health Value-Based Purchasing Model; 

and Home Health Quality Reporting 

Requirements; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical errors in the proposed rule 

that appeared in the July 10, 2015 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS