67068 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1 

■ 2. A new temporary § 165.T08–0784 is 

added to read as follows: 

§ 165.T08–0784 Safety Zone; Natchez 

Specialties New Year’s Eve Firework 

Display, Lower Mississippi River Mile 

Marker, (MM) 363.5 to (MM) 364.5, Natchez, 

MS. 

(a) Location. The following area is 

under a temporary safety zone: waters of 

the Lower Mississippi River, from MM 

363.5 to MM 364.5. 

(b) Effective date and times. This rule 

will be effective from 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 

p.m. on December 31, 2014. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into this area is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port (COTP) Lower 

Mississippi River or a designated 

representative. 

(2) Spectator vessels may safely 

transit outside the safety zone at a 

minimum safe speed, but may not 

anchor, block, loiter, or impede 

participants or official patrol vessels. 

(3) Vessels requiring entry into or 

passage through the safety zone must 

request permission from the COTP 

Lower Mississippi River or a designated 

representative. They may be contacted 

on VHF–FM channels 16 or by 

telephone at (901) 521–4822. 

(4) All vessels shall comply with the 

instructions of the COTP Lower 

Mississippi River and designated 

personnel. Designated personnel 

include commissioned, warrant, and 

petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. 

(d) Informational Broadcasts. The 

Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi 

River or a designated representative will 

inform the public through broadcast 

notices to mariners (BNM) of the 

effective period for the safety zone and 

of any changes in the effective period, 

enforcement times, or size of the safety 

zone. 

Dated: October 31, 2014. 

J.D. Burns, 

Acting, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, 

Acting Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi 

River. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26753 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0099; FRL–9919–02– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Reasonable Further Progress Plan, 

Enhanced Monitoring, Clean Fuel 

Fleets and Failure-to-Attain 

Contingency Measures for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area; and 

Transportation Conformity 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) on January 17, 2012, which 

contain a reasonable further progress 

(RFP) plan and associated contingency 

measures and motor vehicle emission 

budgets; a revised 2002 base year 

emissions inventory for the RFP; 

enhanced ambient monitoring; and the 

clean-fuel fleet programs for the Dallas/ 

Fort Worth (DFW) Serious 

nonattainment area under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. The EPA is also 

approving revisions to the DFW 

Moderate area attainment demonstration 

SIP submitted by the TCEQ on April 6, 

2010, which address the failure-to-attain 

contingency measures. The EPA is also 

approving revisions submitted by the 

TCEQ on July 25, 2007, March 25, 2010 

and April 13, 2012, which address the 

Texas transportation conformity rules 

and the Texas Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Incentive Program for OnRoad and Non-Road Vehicles. The EPA 

is approving these SIP revisions in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0099. 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 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically through http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 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 the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for this final rule is 

discussed in the May 13, 2014 Federal 

Register (FR) where we proposed to 

approve revisions to the Texas SIP (79 

FR 27257), henceforth referred to as our 

‘‘Proposal.’’ We proposed to approve all 

or parts of six SIP revisions submitted 

by the TCEQ, which we organized into 

three categories. First, we proposed to 

approve revisions to the Texas SIP 

submitted on January 17, 2012, to meet 

certain Serious area requirements of 

section 182(c) of the Act for the DFW 

nonattainment area under the 1997 

ozone standard: The reasonable further 

progress (RFP) plan; the RFP 

contingency measure provisions; the 

revised 2002 base year emission 

inventory (EI); enhanced ambient 

monitoring; and the clean-fuel fleet 

programs (CFFPs). Our proposed 

approval of the RFP includes the 

associated motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs) for 2011 and 2012— 

once the EPA approves the submitted 

MVEBs, they must be used by local, 

state and Federal agencies in 

determining whether transportation 

activities conform to the SIP as required 

by section 176(c) of the CAA and 40 

CFR 93.102. Second, we proposed 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, submitted on April 6, 

2010. Third, we proposed to approve 

into the SIP revisions submitted on July 

25, 2007, March 25, 2010, and April 13, 

2012, that make the Texas 

transportation conformity rules 

consistent with the Federal Surface 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 67069 

1The Federal Surface Transportation 

Reauthorization Act is commonly known as the 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA–LU). 

2March 1, 2012 is the implementation date for 

minor sources. The implementation date for major 

sources is March 1, 2011. See 79 FR 45105, August 

4, 2014. 

3As described in our Proposal and TSD–B, EPA 

interprets sections 172 and 182 of the Act to require 

States with Moderate or above ozone nonattainment 

areas to include contingency measures to 

implement additional emission reductions of 3% of 

the adjusted base year inventory in the year 

following the year in which the failure has been 

identified. See 57 FR 13498, 13510, April 16, 1992. 

4Although EPA has not re-opened the issue of 

whether this already-approved contingency 

measure is appropriate, we note that EPA has long 

interpreted the contingency measures provision to 

allow states to rely on measures already in place 

and implemented so long as those reductions are 

beyond those relied on for purposes of the 

attainment or RFP planning SIP. This interpretation 

has been upheld. See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 

(5th Cir. 2004). In addition, section 172(c)(9) of the 

CAA states that contingency measures are to be 

‘‘specific measures to be undertaken if the area fails 

to make reasonable further progress, or to attain 

. . . by the attainment date. . . . Such measures 

shall be included in the plan revision as 

contingency measures to take effect in any such 

case without further action by the State or the 

Administrator.’’ The April 16, 1992 General 

Preamble provided the following guidance: ‘‘States 

must show that their contingency measures can be 

implemented with minimal further action on their 

part and with no additional rulemaking actions 

such as public hearings or legislative review. In 

general, EPA will expect all actions needed to affect 

full implementation of the measures to occur within 

60 days after EPA notifies the State of its failure.’’ 

(57 FR 13512). This could include Federal measures 

and local measures already scheduled for 

implementation. See 70 FR 71612, 71651 

(November 29, 2005). 

Transportation Reauthorization Act 1

and expand the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Incentive Program for OnRoad and Non-Road Vehicles (DERIP, 

also often referred to as the Texas 

Emission Reduction Plan or TERP) to 

include additional projects. 

Our Proposal and the technical 

support documents (TSDs) that 

accompanied the proposed rule provide 

detailed descriptions of the revisions 

and the rationale for our proposed 

decisions. Please see the docket for 

these and other documents regarding 

our Proposal. The public comment 

period for our Proposal closed on June 

12, 2014. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received one comment letter dated 

June 12, 2014, from the Sierra Club (the 

Commenter) regarding our Proposal. A 

summary of the comments and our 

responses to those comments follow. 

A. The Failure-to-Attain Contingency 

Measures 

The Commenter provided the 

following statements regarding the 

failure-to-attain contingency measures: 

• The EPA is approving measures that 

do not ‘‘cure the identified failure [to 

attain]’’ or do not provide a ‘‘backup 

plan of action,’’ and the measures had 

already taken place without air quality 

benefit, prior to the 2010 attainment 

finding. 

• The EPA has not provided any 

information or support to show that the 

state’s projection of reductions resulting 

from fleet turnover from 2009–2010 are 

accurate, provide a ‘‘continuing 

surplus’’ and whether the projections 

would be accurate on a continuing 

basis. The fleet turnover measure is not 

enforceable and therefore is not 

permissible as a contingency measure. 

• Rather than holding Texas 

accountable for its failure to attain the 

1997 ozone standard on multiple 

deadlines, and thus requiring that 

stronger contingency measures be put in 

place, the EPA in this action credits the 

state for reductions that will take place 

naturally and requires nothing more. 

• The EPA should recommend for 

Texas’s consideration emissions 

reductions from large, uncontrolled 

sources contributing to DFW ozone 

levels, even where they are not within 

the nonattainment area. The DFW 

failure-to-attain contingency measures 

should include tighter emission limits 

on the East Texas coal-fired power 

plants. 

• Including selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) on the cement kilns in 

Midlothian as a failure-to-attain 

contingency measure would give Texas 

a greater incentive to ensure that it 

meets a new attainment deadline than 

would allowing it to rely on naturally 

occurring fleet turnover. The EPA 

should recommend that Texas consider 

the EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program 

and other practices recommended by 

the EPA as voluntary measures to 

reduce emissions from oil and natural 

gas operations and improve efficiency. 

Response: The Commenter 

mischaracterizes the action EPA is 

taking. The SIP already includes failureto-attain contingency measures: (1) Fleet 

turnover for 2009 to 2010 and, (2) three 

other measures that reduce emissions of 

volatile organic compounds or VOC— 

Degassing, Dry Cleaning, and Offset 

Lithographic Printing (OLP) rules. See 

74 FR 1903 (January 14, 2009). And, in 

this action EPA is not approving any 

new or different measures into the SIP 

for purposes of the failure-to-attain 

contingency measure requirement. 

Rather, our Proposal only addresses the 

removal of the OLP rule as a failure-toattain contingency measure. 

As of March 1, 2012, the OLP rule is 

being implemented in the DFW area 

pursuant to EPA’s issuance of a control 

technique guideline (CTG) 2 and for that 

reason it is no longer eligible for use as 

a failure-to-attain contingency measure. 

As a result, the State submitted a SIP 

revision to demonstrate that the 

remaining failure-to-attain contingency 

measures would still achieve 3% in 

emissions reductions without the OLP 

rule.3 Fleet turnover for 2009–2010 by 

itself satisfies the 3% emissions 

reductions (fleet turnover is estimated at 

3.68 percent reduction of the base year 

emissions, which includes the NOX and 

VOC emissions reductions, as discussed 

in our TSD–B, beginning on p. 13), so 

removal of the OLP rule as a failure-toattain contingency measure does not 

reduce the remaining emissions 

reductions to less than the 3%.4 Our 

Proposal recognizes that the Moderate 

area failure-to-attain contingency 

measures already approved in the SIP 

meet the Act’s requirement in section 

182(c)(9) for failure-to-attain 

contingency measures. Thus, the 

elimination of OLP as a contingency 

measure does not interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. See CAA section 

110(l). 

We evaluated and described the 

methodologies used to calculate each of 

the measures used in the failure-toattain contingency plan at 74 FR 1903. 

The methodologies were consistent with 

EPA guidance. The Federal Motor 

Vehicle Control programs (FMVCP or 

‘‘fleet turnover’’) are federal rules and as 

such, are enforceable by the EPA, the 

State and the public (see 74 FR 1903). 

We disagree that we have not held the 

State accountable for its failure to attain 

the 1997 ozone standard in the DFW 

area. Consistent with our duties under 

the CAA, on December 20, 2010, we 

reclassified the DFW area from 

Moderate to Serious after it failed to 

meet the June 15, 2010 attainment date 

for the Moderate area (75 FR 79302). In 

that reclassification rulemaking, the 

State was required to submit SIP 

revisions addressing requirements for 

the Serious area no later than one year 

after the effective date of the rulemaking 

and the TCEQ submitted such revisions 

within the time allowed. As a matter of 

law, the EPA is required to approve a 

SIP revision if it meets the Act’s 

requirements, regardless of the State’s 

choices. It is not EPA’s role to rule out 

the State’s choice of components of its 

SIP submittal, including the 

contingency measures, so long as the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
67070 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

5See 75 FR 80240 for more detail. 

6The submittal (and accompanying appendices) 

is available in the docket for this rulemaking, on the 

TCEQ Web site (http://www.tceq.texas.gov/

airquality/sip/dfw_revisions.html) and at http://

www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/

air/sip/dfw/rfp_2011/2010023_ado.pdf. 

7The attainment year is the year immediately 

preceding the attainment date (40 CFR 51.900(g)). 

The attainment date for the DFW Serious area is 

June 15, 2013 (75 FR 79302), thus the DFW area’s 

attainment year is 2012. The target level of 

emissions must be met by the attainment date of the 

attainment year. Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act 

requires that RFP be continued out to the 

attainment date. See 70 FR 71612 and 40 CFR 

51.910. 

8The 2011 and 2012 targets are termed 

‘‘milestone’’ years. 

9These are examples; for a complete list, see 

Tables 8 and 9 in our TSD–A and Appendix 1 in 

the State’s submittal. 

10See section 182(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act for further 

explanation. 

11We note that new and existing federal mobile 

source regulations addressing emissions from 

automobiles, non-road equipment and engines, 

locomotives and marine engines will continue to 

provide additional emissions reductions as the 

plan is adequate to meet the 

requirements of the Act. See Train v. 

NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975) and Union 

Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976). 

We appreciate the Commenter’s 

suggestions regarding emissions 

reductions for large, stationary sources 

and voluntary measures for oil and gas 

operations. Regarding sources outside of 

the nonattainment area, EPA policy 

does not allow emissions reductions 

from outside of the nonattainment area 

to be included in attainment or RFP 

plans. On December 22, 2010, the EPA 

proposed to set aside its earlier 

interpretation of the RFP provisions at 

74 FR 40074 (August 11, 2009) and no 

longer permit states to rely on credit for 

emission reductions from outside the 

ozone nonattainment area to meet the 

area’s RFP obligations (75 FR 80420). In 

light of the reasoning used in Natural 

Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. 

EPA, 571 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 2009), NRDC’s 

petition for reconsideration of the rule 

at 74 FR 40074, and the language of the 

CAA, there is no legal basis for states to 

credit emissions reductions from 

sources outside the nonattainment area 

for satisfying RFP requirements.5 On 

June 6, 2013, the EPA proposed that for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS states may not 

take credit for VOC or NOX reductions 

occurring outside the nonattainment 

area for purposes of meeting the 15 

percent and 3 percent RFP requirements 

of sections 172(c)(2), 182(b)(1) and 

(c)(2)(B). See 78 FR 34178, 34191. 

Finally, as previously noted, the State 

has discretion under the Act to 

determine the components of its SIP 

submittal. 

B. The Serious Area Reasonable Further 

Progress Plan 

Comment: The Commenter states that 

the TCEQ’s January 17, 2012 submittal 

does not explicitly outline a reasonable 

further progress plan or contingency 

measures specifically associated with 

missing a reasonable further progress 

milestone, and that EPA instead 

considers the total reductions Texas 

claims are available for contingency 

measures as above and beyond the 

reductions the state claimed were 

needed for attainment. 

Response: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. The submittal 6 by the State 

and the EPA’s technical analysis 

addressed both RFP and the 

contingency measures that would be 

implemented if an RFP milestone is not 

met. 

Consistent with section 182(c)(2)(B) of 

the Act and the Final Rule to Implement 

the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2 (‘‘the Phase 

2 Rule’’) at 70 FR 71612, 71650 

(November 29, 2005), for each area 

classified as Serious or higher, the 

State’s RFP plan must demonstrate a 

3-percent annual emission reduction 

averaged over every 3-year period after 

the initial 6-year period. For the DFW 

area, the first 3-year period runs from 

January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2011. 

The final increment of progress must be 

achieved no later than the attainment 

date of the attainment year, which is 

June 15, 2012.7 As described in our 

Proposal and TSD–A, the State’s RFP 

submittal accounts for emissions 

reductions that average three percent 

per year, from 2009 through 2011 and 

for 2012.8 Tables 8 and 9 in our TSD– 

A list the measures that provide 

emissions reductions during years 2009 

through 2011 and for 2012. These 

include federal measures and State 

controls that reduce emissions of 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) on electric 

generating units (EGUs) and certain area 

source engines.9 As shown in the 

TSD–A and in Tables 4 and 5 of our 

Proposal, the RFP plan shows a net 

decrease in emissions for the period 

2009–2011 and for 2012 that meets the 

RFP requirement of the Act. 

In addition, the State’s RFP submittal 

must include contingency measures that 

would provide reductions of at least 

three percent of baseline emissions in 

2013. Three percent of the base year 

NOX emissions (630.46 tpd) is 18.91 tpd 

and three percent of the base year VOC 

emissions (481.97 tpd) is 14.46 tpd. The 

State’s contingency measures are listed 

in Table 10 of our TSD–A; these include 

State and federal measures that will 

achieve reductions during 2013 of 41.60 

tpd in NOX emissions and 15.62 tpd in 

VOC emissions. Because the State and 

federal measures achieve at least as 

much in emissions reductions as the 

three percent target values, the State’s 

contingency measures meet the RFP 

requirement of the Act. 

Comment: The Commenter states that 

we failed to provide any verification or 

support for Texas’ projections of 

emissions reductions and failed to 

include a real world check as to whether 

promised reductions have occurred. 

Response: The Commenter’s second 

point—that EPA has not performed a 

‘‘real-world’’ check to ensure that 

promised reductions have occurred—is 

not relevant for this action. This action 

is simply evaluating the SIP to ensure 

that it provides for sufficient measures 

to meet the reasonable further progress 

goals. Additionally, the commenter did 

not present evidence to support the idea 

that the reductions have not occurred 

and EPA has no reason to believe they 

have not. EPA is not reviewing Texas’ 

implementation of the SIP for purposes 

of whether the area attained the 

standard by the attainment date as part 

of this action. As to the first point— 

whether EPA has verified Texas’ 

projection of the emission reductions— 

we disagree. Consistent with section 

182(c)(2)(B), the plan needs to 

demonstrate emissions reductions from 

the baseline emissions equal to the 

following amount averaged over each 

consecutive 3-year period beginning 6 

years after [the effective date of 

designations], until the attainment date: 

(i) At least 3 percent of baseline 

emissions each year; or (ii) an amount 

less than 3 percent of such baseline 

emissions each year, if the State makes 

certain additional demonstrations.10 In 

addition, section 182(c)(9) of the Act 

requires contingency measures equal to 

3% of the baseline to be implemented 

if RFP is not met. Our TSD–A and 

Proposal describe how the State’s 

submittal meets these requirements. 

Texas projected emissions reductions 

from mobile source controls, including, 

but not limited to: Fleet turnover; 

inspection and maintenance; 

reformulated gasoline; Texas lowemission diesel fuel; and Tier 2 and 3 

non-road diesel engines. The projected 

reductions were calculated using mobile 

source emissions estimation models. 

The EPA Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Simulator (MOVES) model was used to 

estimate from on-road mobile source 

controls. A Texas-specific version of the 

EPA NON–ROAD model was used to 

estimate emissions from non-road 

mobile source controls.11 The area 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 67071 

current fleets are replaced with newer vehicles, 

equipment and engines that are certified to more 

stringent emissions standards or engines are re-built 

to comply with any applicable requirements (78 FR 

34178, 34181, June 6, 2013). 

12Area sources are also termed nonpoint sources 

and collectively represent individual sources that 

have not been inventoried as specific point or 

mobile sources. These include small scale 

industrial, commercial and residential sources that 

generate emissions, such as gas stations, bakeries, 

and solvent use (e.g., dry cleaners, automobile paint 

shops, print shops and house paints). 

source 12 emissions were estimated 

using the 2008 National Emissions 

Inventory data, back-calculated to 2002 

(for the base year EI) and projected to 

future dates, using the EPA’s Economic 

Growth Analysis System growth factors. 

This provided the most recent, complete 

set of emissions data available at the 

time the TCEQ developed this RFP plan. 

Point sources (for example, cement and 

power plants) are individually 

inventoried and required to submit 

emissions data to TCEQ annually. The 

data are reviewed by the TCEQ for 

quality assurance purposes and stored 

in the State of Texas Air Reporting 

System. We reviewed the State’s 

methods for developing the projections 

of emissions and found them to be 

adequate. 

III. Final Action 

The EPA is approving revisions to the 

Texas SIP submitted by the TCEQ on 

January 17, 2012, which contain a RFP 

plan and associated contingency 

measures and MVEBs; a revised 2002 

base year EI for the RFP plan; enhanced 

ambient monitoring; and the CFFPs for 

the DFW Serious nonattainment area 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

We are also approving revisions to the 

DFW Moderate area attainment 

demonstration SIP submitted by the 

TCEQ on April 6, 2010, which address 

the failure-to-attain contingency 

measures. We are also approving 

revisions submitted by the TCEQ on 

July 25, 2007, March 25, 2010, and April 

13, 2012, which address the Texas 

transportation conformity rules and the 

Texas Diesel Emissions Reduction 

Incentive Program for On-Road and 

Non-Road Vehicles. These revisions are 

consistent with the CAA, federal 

transportation rules and EPA Guidance 

that addresses economic incentive 

programs and transportation conformity. 

We are also making a ministerial 

correction to the second table in 40 CFR 

52.2270(e) to reflect accurately the date 

of EPA’s approval of the Transportation 

Control Measures SIP on December 5, 

2002 (67 FR 72382). 

IV. 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 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, 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. 

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. 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 January 12, 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: October 29, 2014. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting 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. In § 52.2270: 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising the entries for 

Section 114.260, Section 114.620, and 

Section 114.622. 

■ b. The second table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by revising the entry for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
67072 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Transportation Control Measures SIP 

Revision’’ and adding three new entries 

at the end of the table. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Subchapter G—Transportation Planning 

Section 114.260 ....................... Transportation Conformity ...... 6/27/2007 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter K—Mobile Source Incentive Programs 

Division 3: Diesel Emission Reduction Incentive Program for On-road and Non-road Vehicles 

Section 114.620 ....................... Definitions ............................... 2/24/2010 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Section 114.622 ....................... Incentive Program Requirements.3/28/2012 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE TEXAS SIP 

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

non-attainment area 

State 

submittal/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Transportation Control Measures SIP Revision.All Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas.5/9/2000 12/5/2002, 67 FR 72382 ........ Chapter 1. Introduction, Chapter 2. General, and Chapter 

3. Criteria and Procedures. 

* * * * * * * 

Failure-to-Attain Contingency 

Measures Plan.

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 

Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, 

Rockwall and Tarrant Counties, TX.

3/10/2010 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan (RFP), RFP Contingency Measures, RFP Motor 

Vehicle Emission Budgets 

for 2011 and 2012, and Revised 2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory.

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 

Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, 

Rockwall and Tarrant Counties, TX.

12/7/2011 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Enhanced Ambient Monitoring 

and the Clean-fuel Fleet Programs.

Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, 

Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, 

Rockwall and Tarrant Counties, TX.

12/7/2011 11/12/2014 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 218 / Wednesday, November 12, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 67073 

[FR Doc. 2014–26625 Filed 11–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0765; FRL–9918–61– 

Region 6] 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Delegation 

of Authority to Arkansas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; delegation of 

authority. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving, through a 

‘‘direct final’’ procedure, the straight 

delegation of authority and approval of 

the mechanism used for the 

implementation and enforcement of 

certain unchanged Federal section 112 

rules to the Arkansas Department of 

Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 

pursuant to section 112(l) of the Clean 

Air Act (Act or CAA). A more detailed 

description of the procedures used to 

implement the delegation is set forth in 

a memorandum of agreement (MOA) 

between ADEQ and EPA, dated 

September 17, 2014, a copy of which 

may be found in the docket for this 

rulemaking, as discussed below. The 

delegation only encompasses sources 

subject to one or more Federal section 

112 standards (Part 63 standards 

specifically) which are also subject to 

the requirements of the Title V 

operating permits program. The 

delegation of authority under this action 

does not include authorities contained 

in CAA section 112(r). 

DATES: The rule is effective on January 

12, 2015 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives relevant adverse comment 

by December 12, 2014. If EPA receives 

such comment, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0765, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Mr. Rick Barrett at 

barrett.richard@epa.gov. Please also 

send a copy by email to the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section below. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Rick Barrett, 

Air Permits Section (6PD–R), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0765. 

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 

whose disclosure 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 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 be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

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: Mr. 

Rick Barrett (6PD–R), Air Permits 

Section, telephone (214) 665–7227; 

email: barrett.richard@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ 

and ‘‘us’’ refers to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Why are we delegating this program to 

ADEQ? 

II. What is the history of this request for 

delegation? 

III. How will ADEQ implement this 

delegation? 

IV. What requirements did ADEQ meet to 

receive today’s approval? 

V. How did ADEQ meet the approval criteria? 

VI. How are sources subject to the listed 

standards going to be handled since 

ADEQ did not accept delegation of these 

standards? 

VII. What is being delegated? 

VIII. What is not being delegated? 

IX. How will applicability determinations 

under section 112 be made? 

X. What information must ADEQ provide to 

EPA? 

XI. Should sources submit notices to EPA or 

ADEQ? 

XII. How will unchanged authorities be 

delegated to ADEQ in the future? 

XIII. What is today’s final action? 

XIV. Administrative Requirements 

I. Why are we delegating this program 

to ADEQ? 

Section 112(l) of the CAA enables a 

State to develop and submit to EPA for 

approval a program for partial or 

complete delegation of EPA’s authorities 

for the implementation and enforcement 

of the requirements found in section 112 

of the Act pertaining to the regulation of 

hazardous air pollutants (Federal 

section 112 rules). After notice and 

opportunity for public comment, the 

State program may be approved if EPA 

determines that: (1) the authorities 

contained in the program are adequate 

to assure compliance by all sources 

within the State with each applicable 

requirement, regulation, or requirement 

established by EPA under CAA section 

112; (2) the State has adequate authority 

and resources to implement the 

program; (3) the schedule for 

implementing the program and assuring 

compliance by affected sources is 

sufficiently expeditious: and (4) the 

program is otherwise in compliance 

with guidance issued by EPA under 

CAA section 112(l)(2) and is likely to 

satisfy the objectives of the CAA. Once 

approved, the air toxics program may be 

implemented and enforced by the 

delegated State or local agency, as well 

as EPA. Implementation by local 

agencies is dependent upon appropriate 

sub-delegation. 

II. What is the history of this request for 

delegation? 

In a Federal Register notice dated 

September 8, 1995, EPA Region 6 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES