52630 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The DFW Serious ozone nonattainment area 

under the 1997 ozone standard is comprised of 

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant counties. 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

Effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

Offset measures associated 

with the repeal of Georgia 

Rules 391–3–1–.02(2)(aaa) 

and 391–3–1–.02(2)(bbb) 

and the revision to Georgia 

Rule 391–3–1–.02(2)(mmm).

Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Butts, 

Carroll, Chattooga, Cherokee, Clarke, Clayton, 

Cobb, Coweta, Dawson, 

DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, 

Floyd, Forsyth, Fulton, Gordon, Gwinnett, Hall, 

Haralson, Heard, Henry, 

Jackson, Jasper, Jones, 

Lamar, Lumpkin, Madison, 

Meriwether, Monroe, Morgan, Newton, Oconee, 

Paulding, Pickens, Pike, 

Polk, Putnam, Rockdale, 

Spalding, Troup, Walton 

and Upson.

May 4, 2014 September 1, 2015 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

Includes the contingency offset measure in the event 

that the locomotive conversion program cannot be 

fully completed. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21536 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0098; FRL–9931–78– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area; Determination of 

Attainment of the 1997 Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is disapproving revisions 

to the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted to meet certain 

requirements under section 182(c) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the Dallas/Fort 

Worth (DFW) nonattainment area under 

the 1997 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard). The revisions address the 

attainment demonstration submitted on 

January 17, 2012, by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) for the DFW Serious 

nonattainment area. The EPA has also 

determined that the DFW nonattainment 

area is currently attaining the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. This determination is 

based upon complete, quality-assured 

and certified ambient air monitoring 

data that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the 2012–2014 monitoring period. 

Thus, the requirements to submit an 

attainment demonstration and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 

sanctions clock and the EPA’s obligation 

to promulgate an attainment 

demonstration Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for the DFW area are 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

October 1, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0098. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carrie Paige, (214) 665–6521, 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our April 28, 2015 

Proposal (80 FR 23487). In that notice, 

we proposed to disapprove the TCEQ’s 

8-hour ozone attainment demonstration 

for the DFW Serious nonattainment area 

because the area failed to attain the 1997 

ozone NAAQS by the June 15, 2013 

attainment date.1 Our analysis and 

findings are discussed in the proposed 

rulemaking. We also proposed to 

determine that the DFW ozone 

nonattainment area is currently in 

attainment of the 1997 ozone standard 

based on the most recent 3 years of 

quality-assured air quality data. 

Certified ambient air monitoring data 

show that the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the 2012–2014 monitoring period 

and continues to monitor attainment of 

the NAAQS based on preliminary 2015 

data. 

Our Proposal and the technical 

support document (TSD) that 

accompanied the proposed rule provide 

our rationale for this rulemaking. Please 

see the docket for these and other 

documents regarding our Proposal. The 

public comment period for our Proposal 

closed on May 28, 2015. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter dated 

May 28, 2015, from the TCEQ (the 

Commenter) regarding our Proposal. A 

summary of the comments and our 

responses follow. 

Comment: The Commenter agrees 

with our Proposal to determine that the 

DFW ozone nonattainment area is 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 52631 

2See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015. 

3See 80 FR 12264, at 12297; 40 CFR 

51.1105(d)(2). On February 17, 2015, we proposed 

to determine that the DFW area did not attain the 

1997 ozone standard by the attainment date and to 

reclassify the area to Severe (see 80 FR 8274). The 

SRR was published and effective shortly thereafter 

and we have not finalized the proposal to reclassify 

the DFW area to Severe. 

4On October 17, 2014, the Sierra Club filed a 

lawsuit to compel the EPA to comply with the 

CAA’s mandatory duty to act on this SIP submittal. 

Sierra Club v. McCarthy, Case No. 14–CV–00833– 

ESH (DC). The parties entered a consent decree on 

January 23, 2015, that requires EPA to finalize 

action on this submittal by August 31, 2015. 

5The State’s request is in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

6 In the SRR, among other things, we revoked the 

1997 ozone standard and finalized a redesignation 

substitute procedure for a revoked standard. See 80 

FR 12264 and 40 CFR 51.1105(b). Under this 

redesignation substitute procedure, the state must 

demonstrate that the area has attained that revoked 

NAAQS due to permanent and enforceable 

emission reductions and that the area will maintain 

that revoked NAAQS for 10 years from the date of 

the EPA’s approval of this showing. 7 80 FR 12264, at 12297; 40 CFR 51.1105(d)(2). 

currently in attainment of the 1997 

ozone standard based on the most recent 

3 years of quality-assured air quality 

data. 

Response: We concur with the 

Commenter. 

Comment: The Commenter does not 

support our Proposal to disapprove the 

DFW Serious area attainment 

demonstration under the 1997 ozone 

standard, given that the EPA’s final rule 

to implement SIP requirements under 

the 2008 ozone standard (the SIP 

requirements rule or SRR),2 among other 

things, revoked the 1997 ozone standard 

and relieved the EPA of its obligation to 

issue a finding of failure to attain by the 

attainment date or reclassification (i.e., 

‘‘bump up’’) for such standard. The 

Commenter also states that the 

disapproval is unnecessary and may 

result in future obligations for the 

revoked standard and expenditure of 

limited state and federal resources for 

no true air quality benefit. 

Response: The Commenter is correct 

that, as of April 6, 2015, the 1997 ozone 

standard is revoked, the EPA is no 

longer obligated to determine pursuant 

to CAA section 181(b)(2) or section 

179(c) whether an area attained the 1997 

ozone NAAQS by that area’s attainment 

date for that NAAQS, and the EPA is 

also no longer obligated to reclassify an 

area to a higher classification for the 

1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a 

determination that the area failed to 

attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS by the 

area’s attainment date for that NAAQS.3

However, this rulemaking addresses the 

EPA’s obligation to act on the 

attainment demonstration SIP submittal. 

Pursuant to section 110(k)(2) of the 

CAA, we have a mandatory duty to act 

on each SIP submittal before us and 

therefore, it is necessary for us to take 

action on the DFW submittal.4

Regardless of our revocation of the 1997 

ozone standard, because we had yet to 

act on the attainment demonstration 

submittal and the DFW area did not 

attain the 1997 ozone standard by its 

June 15, 2013 attainment date, EPA is 

required to disapprove the State’s 

attainment demonstration. 

With regard to the Commenter’s 

remark about future obligations that 

may be brought on by this final 

disapproval, on February 27, 2015, the 

TCEQ requested that we make a Clean 

Data Determination (CDD) for the DFW 

area with regard to the 1997 ozone 

standard and we are finalizing the CDD 

proposed on April 28, 2015 in this 

rulemaking.5 Finalizing the CDD 

suspends the requirements for the TCEQ 

to submit an attainment demonstration 

and other SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the DFW area 

for so long as the area is attaining the 

standard (40 CFR 51.1118), and the 18- 

month sanctions clock associated with 

EPA’s disapproval as well as the EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate an attainment 

demonstration FIP within two years of 

disapproval are also tolled for so long as 

this CDD remains in place. Thus, as long 

as the area is able to maintain air quality 

meeting the 1997 ozone standard, no 

obligations will accrue from this 

disapproval. In addition, the State is 

currently working to develop the DFW 

attainment demonstration for the more 

stringent 2008 ozone standard, and in 

doing so, the TCEQ necessarily must 

also demonstrate attainment of the 1997 

ozone standard. The State may also 

submit a redesignation substitute 

request and upon final approval by the 

EPA, the clocks to impose sanctions and 

a FIP suspended by this CDD action 

would lift permanently.6 However, in 

the event that the DFW area falls out of 

attainment of the 1997 ozone standard 

prior to obtaining EPA approval of a 

redesignation substitute, even though 

the EPA has revoked that standard, the 

CAA requires EPA to continue to ensure 

that the State’s plan meets the 

requirements of that standard for 

purposes of anti-backsliding, including 

the obligations associated with a 

disapproved attainment demonstration. 

CAA 110(l); see also, South Coast Air 

Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d 

882, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006); 78 FR 34178, 

34211–34225; 80 FR 12264, 12300. 

Further, the EPA does not agree that 

efforts to address the 1997 standard 

would expend resources for no air 

quality benefit; should air quality in the 

DFW area worsen to levels above the 

1997 ozone standard prior to approval 

of a redesignation substitute, the 

subsequent obligations and actions 

required by the statute to reduce ozone 

levels in the DFW area would be 

beneficial to achieving both the 1997 

and 2008 ozone standards. 

III. What is the effect of this action? 

A disapproval of an attainment plan 

as being promulgated here would 

normally start a FIP and sanctions clock. 

However, in accordance with our Clean 

Data Policy as codified in 40 CFR 

51.1118, a determination of attainment 

suspends the requirements for the TCEQ 

to submit an attainment demonstration 

and other SIPs related to attaining the 

1997 ozone NAAQS in the DFW area for 

so long as the area continues to attain 

the standard. In addition, the sanctions 

clock and the EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate an attainment 

demonstration FIP are tolled for so long 

as this CDD remains in place. However, 

should the area violate the 1997 ozone 

standard after the CDD is finalized, the 

EPA would rescind the CDD and the 

sanctions and FIP clocks would resume. 

Because the revocation of the 1997 

ozone standard in the SRR also revoked 

EPA’s obligation to determine whether 

an area attained the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

by that area’s attainment date and to 

reclassify an area to a higher 

classification for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS based upon a determination 

that the area failed to attain that NAAQS 

by the area’s attainment date,7 we do 

not intend to finalize our proposed 

finding of failure to attain and 

reclassification at 80 FR 8274. 

IV. Final Action 

The EPA is disapproving certain 

elements of the attainment 

demonstration SIP submitted by the 

TCEQ for the DFW Serious ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are 

disapproving the attainment 

demonstration, the demonstration for 

reasonably available control measures, 

and the attainment demonstration motor 

vehicle emission budgets for 2012. The 

EPA is disapproving these SIP revisions 

because the area failed to attain the 

standard by its June 15, 2013 attainment 

date, and thus we have determined that 

the plan was insufficient to demonstrate 

attainment by the attainment date. 

We also find that the DFW ozone 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 ozone standard and continues to 

attain the standard. Thus, the 

requirements for submitting the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

52632 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

attainment demonstration and other 

SIPs related to attainment of the 1997 

ozone NAAQS are suspended for so 

long as the area is attaining the 

standard, and the sanctions and 

obligations accruing from EPA’s 

disapproval of the attainment 

demonstration are also suspended 

during that period. 

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. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to act on state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This final action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this 

final SIP action under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the CAA will not 

in-and-of itself create any new 

information collection burdens but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

rule on small entities, small entity is 

defined as: (1) A small business as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule does not impose any 

requirements or create impacts on small 

entities. This final SIP action under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA will not in-and-of itself create 

any new requirements but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, 

it affords no opportunity for EPA to 

fashion for small entities less 

burdensome compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the CAA prescribes that 

various consequences (e.g., higher offset 

requirements) may or will flow from 

this disapproval does not mean that the 

EPA either can or must conduct a 

regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

action. Therefore, this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

EPA has determined that the 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action disapproves 

pre-existing requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires the EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This final action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not 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, because it 

merely disapproves certain State 

requirements for inclusion into the SIP 

and does not alter the relationship or 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where the EPA or an Indian 

tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this final action does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

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

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This SIP action 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself 

create any new regulations but simply 

disapproves certain State requirements 

from inclusion into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This final action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 52633 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs the 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The EPA believes that this final action 

is not subject to requirements of Section 

12(d) of NTTAA because application of 

those requirements would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

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. 

The EPA lacks the discretionary 

authority to address environmental 

justice in this proposed action. In 

reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA’s 

role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain State requirements 

from inclusion into the SIP under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA and will not in-and-of itself 

create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it does not provide the 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this action 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by November 2, 2015. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposed of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

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. 

Dated: August 21, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart SS—Texas 

■ 2. Section 52.2273 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2273 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(i) The attainment demonstration for 

the Dallas/Fort Worth Serious ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone standard submitted January 17, 

2012 is disapproved. The disapproval 

applies to the attainment demonstration, 

the determination for reasonably 

available control measures, and the 

attainment demonstration motor vehicle 

emission budgets for 2012. 

■ 3. Section 52.2275 is amended by 

adding paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2275 Control strategy and 

regulations: Ozone. 

* * * * * 

(i) Determination of attainment. 

Effective October 1, 2015 the EPA has 

determined that the Dallas/Fort Worth 

8-hour ozone nonattainment area has 

attained the 1997 ozone standard. Under 

the provisions of the EPA’s Clean Data 

Policy, this determination suspends the 

requirements for this area to submit an 

attainment demonstration and other 

State Implementation Plans related to 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for so long as the area continues to 

attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

[FR Doc. 2015–21539 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2015–0001; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8397] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. Also, information 

identifying the current participation 

status of a community can be obtained 

from FEMA’s Community Status Book 

(CSB). The CSB is available at http://

www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm. 

DATES: The effective date of each 

community’s scheduled suspension is 

the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) listed in the 

third column of the following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES