Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 23487 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg in the 

enforcement of the regulated areas. 

(c) Regulations. (1) All persons and 

vessels are prohibited from entering, 

transiting through, anchoring in, or 

remaining within the race area unless an 

authorized race participant. 

(2) Designated representatives may 

control vessel traffic throughout the 

enforcement area as determined by the 

prevailing conditions. 

(3) All vessels in the spectator area are 

to be anchored or operate at a No Wake 

Speed. On-scene designated 

representatives will direct spectator 

vessels to the spectator area. 

(4) All vessel traffic not involved with 

the event shall enter and exit Sarasota 

Bay via Big Sarasota Pass and stay clear 

of the enforcement area. 

(5) New Pass will be closed to all 

inbound and outbound vessel traffic at 

the COLREGS Demarcation Line. 

Vessels are allowed to utilize New Pass 

to access all areas inland of the 

Demarcation Line via Sarasota Bay. New 

Pass may be opened at the discretion of 

the Captain of the Port. 

(6) Persons and vessels may request 

authorization to enter, transit through, 

anchor in, or remain within the 

regulated areas by contacting the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg by 

telephone at (727) 824–7506, or a 

designated representative via VHF radio 

on channel 16. If authorization is 

granted by the Captain of the Port St. 

Petersburg or a designated 

representative, all persons and vessels 

receiving such authorization must 

comply with the instructions of the 

Captain of the Port St. Petersburg or a 

designated representative. 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced annually the first 

Friday, Saturday, and Sunday of July 

from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT daily. 

Dated: April 2, 2015. 

G.D. Case, 

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

Port St. Petersburg. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09860 Filed 4–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0873; FRL–9926–18– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air Quality 

Management District (YSAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

organic solvents cleaning operations. 

We are proposing to rescind and 

approve local rules to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by May 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0873 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3024, Lazarus.Arnold@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: YSAQMD Rule 1.1 ‘‘General 

Provisions and Definitions,’’ Rule 2.13 

‘‘Organic Solvents,’’ Rule 2.15 ‘‘Disposal 

and Evaporation of Solvents,’’ Rule 2.24 

‘‘Solvent Cleaning Operations 

(Degreasing),’’ and Rule 2.31 ‘‘Solvent 

Cleaning and Degreasing.’’ In the Rules 

and Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving Rule 1.1 and 

Rule 2.31 and rescinding Rule 2.13, 

Rule 2.15 and Rule 2.24, all local rules, 

in a direct final action without prior 

proposal because we believe these SIP 

revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. Please note that 

if we receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09735 Filed 4–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0098; FRL–9926–92– 

Region–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality 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: Proposed rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23488 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove revisions to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to 

meet certain requirements under section 

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

for the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 

nonattainment area under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. 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 is also 

proposing to determine that the DFW 8- 

hour ozone nonattainment area is 

currently attaining the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This determination is based 

upon certified ambient air monitoring 

data that show the area has monitored 

attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS 

for the 2012–2014 monitoring period. If 

this proposed determination is made 

final, the requirements for this area to 

submit an attainment demonstration, a 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, 

contingency measures, and other 

planning SIPs related to attainment of 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS shall be 

suspended for so long as the area 

continues to attain the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. This proposed action is 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 110 and part D of the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 28, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0098, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

• Email: Ms. Carrie Paige at 

paige.carrie@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy 

Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0098. 

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 

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 that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. 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. 

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: Ms. 

Carrie Paige, telephone (214) 665–6521, 

email address paige.carrie@epa.gov. To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

contact Ms. Paige or Mr. Bill Deese at 

(214) 665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ means EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the EPA proposing? 

II. Our Action Under Section 182(c) of the 

CAA (the Serious Area Requirements) 

A. Background 

B. What is the EPA proposing to 

disapprove? 

C. What are the consequences of a 

disapproved SIP? 

III. Our Action Under the Clean Data 

Determination 

A. Background 

B. EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air 

Quality Data 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the EPA proposing? 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

Texas’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. 

EPA’s analysis and findings are 

discussed in this proposed rulemaking. 

We are also proposing 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. 

This action is also known as a ‘‘Clean 

Data Determination’’ (see 40 CFR 

51.1118). 

This proposal is based on EPA’s 

review of complete, quality assured and 

certified ambient air quality monitoring 

data for the 2010–2012 and 2012–2014 

monitoring periods that are available in 

the EPA Air Quality System (AQS). The 

AQS report for these monitors, for 2010 

through 2014, is provided in the docket 

for this rulemaking. 

II. Our Action Under Section 182(c) of 

the CAA (the Serious Area 

Requirements) 

A. Background 

1. The National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

Section 109 of the CAA requires the 

EPA to establish NAAQS for pollutants 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

endanger public health and welfare and 

to develop a primary and secondary 

standard for each NAAQS. The primary 

standard is designed to protect human 

health with an adequate margin of safety 

and the secondary standard is designed 

to protect public welfare. The EPA has 

set NAAQS for six common air 

pollutants, also referred to as criteria 

pollutants: Carbon monoxide, lead, 

nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate 

matter, and sulfur dioxide. These 

standards present state and local 

governments with the minimum air 

quality levels they must meet to comply 

with the Act. 

2. What is a State Implementation Plan? 

The SIP is a plan for clean air, 

required by section 110 and other 

provisions of the CAA. The Act requires 

states to develop air pollution 

regulations and control strategies to 

ensure that for each area designated 

nonattainment for a NAAQS, state air 

quality will improve and meet the 

NAAQS established by the EPA. A SIP 

is a set of air pollution regulations, 

control strategies, other means or 

techniques, and technical analyses 

developed by the state, to ensure that 

the state meets the NAAQS. A SIP 

protects air quality primarily by 

addressing air pollution at its point of 

origin. A SIP can be extensive, 

containing state regulations or other 

enforceable documents, and supporting 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 23489 

1 VOC and NOX are often referred to as 

‘‘precursors’’ to ozone formation. 2For additional information on ozone, please 

visit www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone. 3On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA 

promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 

0.075 ppm, known as the 2008 ozone standard. On 

April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations 

under the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088) and 

in that action, the EPA designated 10 counties in 

the DFW area as a Moderate ozone nonattainment 

area: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, 

Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise. The 

EPA’s actions herein do not address the DFW 

nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone standard. 

4For more information regarding an attainment 

demonstration, please see the General Preamble for 

the Implementation of Title I of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498, 13510 (April 

16, 1992); 40 CFR 51.112; and 40 CFR 51.908. 

5Separately on January 17, 2012, the TCEQ 

submitted the RFP plan, with contingency 

measures, for the DFW Serious nonattainment area. 

That submittal and EPA’s action are available at 

www.regulations.gov, docket number EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0099. 

information such as emissions 

inventories, monitoring networks, and 

modeling demonstrations. When a state 

makes changes to the regulations and 

control strategies in its SIP, such 

revisions must be submitted to the EPA 

for approval and incorporation into the 

federally-enforceable SIP. 

3. What is ozone and what is the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard? 

Ozone is a gas composed of three 

oxygen atoms. Ground-level ozone is 

generally not emitted directly from a 

vehicle’s exhaust or an industrial 

smokestack, but is created by a chemical 

reaction between volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs) and oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of 

sunlight.1 Ozone is known primarily as 

a summertime air pollutant. Motor 

vehicle exhaust and industrial 

emissions, gasoline vapors, chemical 

solvents and natural sources emit NOX

and VOCs. Urban areas tend to have 

high concentrations of ground-level 

ozone, but areas without significant 

industrial activity and with relatively 

low vehicular traffic are also subject to 

increased ozone levels because wind 

carries ozone and its precursors 

hundreds of miles from their sources.2

On July 18, 1997, the EPA 

promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

of 0.08 parts per million (ppm), known 

as the 1997 ozone standard.3 See 62 FR 

38856 and 40 CFR 50.10. Under EPA 

regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix 

I, the 1997 ozone standard is attained 

when the 3-year average of the annual 

fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average ambient ozone concentration is 

less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. 

4. The DFW Nonattainment Area and Its 

Current Nonattainment Classification 

Under the 1997 Ozone Standard 

On April 30, 2004, the EPA 

designated and classified the 9-county 

DFW area (consisting of Collin, Dallas, 

Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, 

Parker, Rockwall and Tarrant counties) 

as a Moderate nonattainment area under 

the 1997 ozone standard with an 

attainment date of no later than June 15, 

2010 (see 69 FR 23858 and 69 FR 

23951). However, the DFW area failed to 

attain the 1997 ozone standard by June 

15, 2010, and was accordingly 

reclassified as a Serious ozone 

nonattainment area with an attainment 

date of no later than June 15, 2013 (75 

FR 79302, December 20, 2010). 

Following reclassification to Serious, 

the State submitted a revised attainment 

plan for the DFW area dated January 17, 

2012. The area failed to attain the 1997 

ozone standard by June 15, 2013, and in 

a separate rulemaking, the EPA 

proposed to determine that the area did 

not attain the standard by the 

attainment date and to reclassify the 

area to Severe (see 80 FR 8274, February 

17, 2015). 

5. What is an attainment demonstration? 

In general, an attainment 

demonstration shows how an area will 

achieve the standard as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than the 

attainment date specified for its 

classification. A typical attainment 

demonstration is made with the use of 

air quality models that simulate the 

changes of pollutant concentrations in 

the atmosphere encompassing the 

nonattainment area and thus is an 

estimate.4 As a part of this showing, the 

demonstration should simulate 

projected emissions growth due to 

factors such as population growth and 

pollution reductions due to imposition 

of controls. 

6. What did the state submit? 

The TCEQ’s January 17, 2012 

attainment demonstration submittal for 

the DFW Serious nonattainment area 

included air quality modeling and a 

weight-of-evidence analysis in which 

the state purported that the area would 

attain by the area’s attainment date of 

June 13, 2013; Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budgets (MVEBs) for transportation 

conformity purposes; an analysis for 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM); an analysis for Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT); 

and a contingency plan. In addition, as 

part of the submission, the state 

addressed the CAA requirements for 

enhanced ambient monitoring and the 

clean-fuel fleet programs (CFFPs) at 

section 182(c) of the Act. On November 

12, 2014, the EPA approved the RFP 

plan for the DFW Serious nonattainment 

area 5 and the associated contingency 

plan and found that the State has 

fulfilled the CAA requirements for 

enhanced ambient monitoring and the 

CFFPs (see 79 FR 67068). On March 27, 

2015, the EPA approved the portion of 

the January 17, 2012 submittal that 

addresses the RACT requirements (see 

80 FR 16291). 

B. What is the EPA proposing to 

disapprove? 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

DFW Serious area attainment 

demonstration because it was not 

adequate for the area to attain the 1997 

ozone standard by its attainment date. 

Because we are disapproving the 

attainment demonstration, we must also 

disapprove the associated RACM 

analysis and MVEBs that are included 

within that attainment demonstration. 

Under the Act’s RACM requirements, a 

State must implement all reasonable 

measures. EPA relates this requirement 

to the attainment demonstration by 

interpreting the requirement to call for 

any reasonable measures be 

implemented that would accelerate 

attainment of the standard. Because of 

the relationship to the attainment 

demonstration, the RACM analysis 

cannot be approved. Finally, approvable 

MVEBs must be consistent with an 

approvable attainment plan. 

C. What are the consequences of a 

disapproved SIP? 

This section explains the 

consequences of disapproval of a SIP 

that addresses a mandatory requirement 

under the CAA. The CAA stipulates the 

imposition of sanctions and the 

promulgation of a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) if EPA 

disapproves a required plan submission 

and the deficiency is not corrected 

within the relevant timeframe. 

1. What are the Act’s provisions for 

sanctions? 

If the EPA disapproves a required SIP 

or component(s) of a required SIP, 

section 179(a) of the Act provides for 

the imposition of sanctions unless the 

deficiency is corrected within 18 

months of the effective date of the final 

disapproval. The imposition of 

sanctions would be stayed if the state 

submits a SIP for which the EPA 

proposes full or conditional approval 

and sanctions would not apply or would 

be lifted once EPA approves a SIP 

correcting the deficiency. Additionally, 

if EPA finalizes a clean data 

determination (CDD) for the area within 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23490 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

6 In EPA’s final rule to implement SIP 

requirements under the 2008 ozone standard (the 

SIP requirements rule or SRR), among other things, 

we revoked the 1997 ozone standard and finalized 

a redesignation substitute procedure for a revoked 

standard. See 80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015 and 40 

CFR 51.1105(b). Under this redesignation substitute 

procedure for a revoked NAAQS, the demonstration 

must show 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 

EPA’s approval of this showing. 

7 In the SRR, the EPA finalized the same approach 

with respect to the Clean Data Policy for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS as it applied in the Phase 1 Rule for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS. That is, a determination 

of attainment would suspend the obligation to 

submit attainment planning SIP elements for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. Such a determination would 

suspend the obligation to submit any attainmentrelated SIP elements not yet approved in the SIP, 

for so long as the area continues to attain the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. In addition, the EPA replaced 40 

CFR 51.918 with 40 CFR 51.1118 to consolidate in 

one regulation a comprehensive provision 

applicable to determinations of attainment for the 

current and former ozone NAAQS. Thus, 40 CFR 

51.1118 will apply to a determination of attainment 

that is made with respect to any revoked or current 

ozone NAAQS—the 1-hour, the 1997 or the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, a final CDD would 

suspend the duty to submit the Serious area SIP 

revisions and the sanctions and FIP clocks. 

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. See 80 FR 12264, 12296 and 12317 

and 40 CFR 51.1118. 

the 18 months, the sanctions clocks will 

be tolled so long as the area remains 

clean. If the deficiency is not corrected 

within such timeframe and no CDD is 

finalized, the first sanction would apply 

18 months after the EPA’s disapproval 

of the SIP is effective. Under the EPA’s 

sanctions regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, 

the first sanction would be an offset 

ratio of 2:1 for sources subject to the 

new source review requirements under 

section 173 of the Act. The second 

sanction would apply 24 months after 

the effective date of the final 

disapproval, unless the deficiency is 

corrected by that time. The second 

sanction is a limitation on the use of 

federal highway funds as provided by 

section 179(b)(1) of the Act. The EPA 

also has authority under CAA section 

110(m) to sanction a broader area, but is 

not proposing to take such action in 

today’s rulemaking. 

2. What are the Act’s provisions for a 

Federal Implementation Plan? 

In addition to sanctions, if the EPA 

disapproves the required SIP revision, 

or a portion thereof, section 110(c)(1) of 

the Act provides that the EPA must 

promulgate a FIP no later than 2 years 

from the effective date of the 

disapproval if the deficiency has not 

been corrected within that time period. 

The deficiency would be corrected if the 

state submits and EPA approves a SIP 

correcting the deficiency. 

3. What action would stop the 

imposition of sanctions and a FIP? 

The State must address the deficiency 

forming the basis of the disapproval. 

The sanctions and FIP clocks would 

also stop (or any imposed sanctions 

would be lifted) if the area attains the 

1997 ozone standard and EPA approves 

a redesignation substitute for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS.6 Alternatively, if EPA 

finalizes the Clean Data Determination 

(CDD) it is proposing in this action, the 

sanctions clock and EPA’s obligation to 

promulgate an attainment 

demonstration FIP would be tolled for 

so long as the CDD remains in place.7

4. What are the ramifications regarding 

conformity? 

In an attainment demonstration SIP 

the state addresses, among other issues, 

transportation conformity. Conformity 

to a SIP means that transportation 

activities will not produce new air 

quality violations, worsen existing 

violations, or delay timely attainment of 

the NAAQS. Conformity is required by 

section 176(c) of the Act for ensuring 

that the effects of emissions from all onroad sources are consistent with 

attainment of the standard. The federal 

conformity rules at 40 CFR 93.120 

require the implementation of a 

conformity freeze when the EPA 

disapproves an attainment 

demonstration SIP. A conformity freeze 

can affect an area’s long range 

transportation plans and transportation 

improvement programs (TIPs). However, 

EPA’s final rule addressing SIP 

requirements under the 2008 ozone 

standard and revoking the 1997 ozone 

standard for all purposes, including 

transportation conformity, became 

effective on April 6, 2015 (see 80 FR 

12264). Therefore, no conformity freeze 

will occur for the DFW area upon a final 

disapproval (see 80 FR 12264, 12284). 

III. Our Action Under the Clean Data 

Determination 

A. Background 

If EPA’s determination that the area is 

currently attaining the eight-hour ozone 

standard is finalized, 40 CFR 51.1118 of 

EPA’s ozone implementation rule 

provides that the requirements for the 

States to submit certain RFP plans, 

attainment demonstrations, contingency 

measures and any other attainment 

planning requirements of the CAA 

related to attainment of that standard 

shall be suspended for as long as the 

area continues to attain the standard. 

However, a CDD does not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment under 

section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, and if 

EPA determines that the area 

subsequently violates the standard, that 

suspension of the requirement to submit 

the attainment planning SIP provisions 

is lifted, and those requirements are 

once again due. Even though EPA has 

finalized revocation of the 1997 eighthour ozone NAAQS, under 40 CFR 

51.1118, an area remains subject to the 

obligations for a revoked NAAQS under 

40 CFR 51, Appendix S to Subpart AA, 

Section VII(A) until either (i) the area is 

redesignated to attainment for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS; or (ii) the EPA approves 

a demonstration for the area in a 

redesignation substitute procedure for a 

revoked NAAQS per the provisions of 

§ 51.1105(b). Under this redesignation 

substitute procedure for a revoked 

NAAQS, and for this limited antibacksliding purpose, the demonstration 

must show 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 EPA’s approval of this showing. 

We also note that the Clean Data 

Determination does not constitute a 

Determination of Attainment by an 

Area’s Attainment Date under sections 

179(c) and 181(b)(2) of the Act. 

B. EPA’s Analysis of the Relevant Air 

Quality Data 

For ozone, an area is considered to be 

attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS if 

there are no violations, as determined in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 50, based 

on three complete, consecutive calendar 

years of quality-assured air quality 

monitoring data. Under EPA regulations 

at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 ozone 

standard is attained when the 3-year 

average of the annual fourth-highest 

daily maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations at an ozone monitor is 

less than or equal to 0.08 parts per 

million (ppm), (i.e., 0.084 ppm, when 

rounding, based on the truncating 

conventions in 40 CFR part 50, 

Appendix P). This 3-year average is 

referred to as the design value. When 

the design value is less than or equal to 

0.084 ppm at each monitor within the 

area, then the area is meeting the 

NAAQS. Also, the data completeness 

requirement is met when the average 

percent of days with valid ambient 

monitoring data is greater than or equal 

to 90%, and no single year has less than 

75% data completeness as determined 

in Appendix P of 40 CFR part 50. The 

data must be collected and qualityassured in accordance with 40 CFR part 

58, and recorded in the EPA Air Quality 

System (AQS). The monitors generally 

should have remained at the same 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 23491 

8See http://www.tceq.texas.gov/agency/data/

ozone_data.html. 

location for the duration of the 

monitoring period required for 

demonstrating attainment. For ease of 

communication, many reports of ozone 

concentrations are given in parts per 

billion (ppb); ppb = ppm × 1,000. Thus, 

0.084 ppm equals 84 ppb. 

The EPA reviewed the DFW area 

ozone monitoring data from ambient 

ozone monitoring stations for the ozone 

seasons 2012 through 2014. The 2012– 

2014 ozone season data for all the ozone 

monitors in the DFW area have been 

quality assured and certified by the 

EPA. The design value for 2012–2014 is 

81 ppb. At the time of this writing, the 

preliminary ozone data for 2015 are 

posted on the TCEQ Web site, but are 

not yet posted in AQS.8 The data for the 

three ozone seasons 2012–2014, and 

preliminary data for 2015, show that the 

DFW area is attaining the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. 

Table 1 shows the fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone 

concentrations for the DFW 

nonattainment area monitors for the 

years 2012–2014. (To find the overall 

design value for the area for a given 

year, simply find the highest design 

value from any of the 17 monitors for 

that year.) 

TABLE 1—THE DFW AREA FOURTH HIGH 8-HOUR OZONE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS AND DESIGN VALUES (PPM) FOR

2012–2014 

Site name and No. 

4th Highest daily max Design value 

(2012–2014) 2012 2013 2014 

Fort Worth Northwest, 48–439–1002 .............................................................. 0.077 0.084 0.079 0.080 

Keller, 48–439–2003 ........................................................................................ 0.079 0.080 0.074 0.077 

Frisco, 48–085–0005 ....................................................................................... 0.084 0.078 0.074 0.078 

Midlothian OFW, 48–139–0016 ....................................................................... 0.078 0.075 0.062 0.071 

Denton Airport South, 48–121–0034 ............................................................... 0.081 0.085 0.077 0.081 

Arlington Municipal Airport, 48–439–3011 ....................................................... 0.092 0.068 0.065 0.075 

Dallas North No. 2, 48–113–0075 ................................................................... 0.086 0.077 0.070 0.077 

Rockwall Heath, 48–397–0001 ........................................................................ 0.080 0.073 0.066 0.073 

Grapevine Fairway, 48–439–3009 .................................................................. 0.086 0.083 0.073 0.080 

Kaufman, 48–257–0005 .................................................................................. 0.073 0.075 0.062 0.070 

Eagle Mountain Lake, 48–439–0075 ............................................................... 0.087 0.077 0.073 0.079 

Parker County, 48–367–0081 .......................................................................... 0.076 0.074 0.072 0.074 

Cleburne Airport, 48–251–0003 ...................................................................... 0.082 0.077 0.071 0.076 

Dallas Hinton St., 48–113–0069 ...................................................................... 0.087 0.081 0.066 0.078 

Dallas Executive Airport, 48–113–0087 .......................................................... 0.085 0.074 0.062 0.073 

Pilot Point, 48–121–1032 ................................................................................ 0.078 0.084 0.075 0.079

Italy, 48–139–1044 .......................................................................................... 0.071 0.072 0.060 0.067 

As shown in Table 1, the 8-hour ozone 

design value for 2012–2014, which is 

based on a three-year average of the 

fourth-highest daily maximum average 

ozone concentration at the monitor 

recording the highest concentrations, is 

81 ppb, which meets the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. Data for 2015 not yet certified 

also indicate that the area continues to 

attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The AQS 

data reports for the DFW area for the 

three years 2012 through 2014 and a 

technical support document are 

included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

IV. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

certain elements of the attainment 

demonstration SIP submitted by the 

TCEQ for the DFW Serious ozone 

nonattainment area under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we 

are proposing to disapprove the 

attainment demonstration, the 

demonstration for RACM, and the 

attainment demonstration MVEBs for 

2012. The EPA is proposing to 

disapprove 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. The 

EPA is also proposing to determine that 

the DFW 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area is currently attaining the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. This determination is 

based upon certified ambient air 

monitoring data that show the area has 

monitored attainment of the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS for the 2012–2014 monitoring 

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, 

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed SIP disapproval 

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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
23492 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

today’s 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 today’s proposed 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 proposed SIP disapproval 

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 

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. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

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.’’ EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

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 proposes to 

disapprove 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 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 proposed 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 EPA or an Indian tribe 

has demonstrated that a tribe has 

jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 

country, this proposed 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 

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 proposed 

SIP disapproval 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 for inclusion 

into the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This proposed 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 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

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

note) directs 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 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 proposed 

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. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed action. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 81 / Tuesday, April 28, 2015 / Proposed Rules 23493 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 

action merely proposes to disapprove 

certain State requirements for 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 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. 

K. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by section 110 of the CAA, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410). 

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: April 17, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–09901 Filed 4–27–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 45 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0954] 

Special Load Line Exemption for Lake 

Michigan/Muskegon Route: Petition for 

Rulemaking 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of decision. 

SUMMARY: On May 27, 2014, the Coast 

Guard published a Notice of Availability 

and Request for Public Comment 

regarding a petition for a rulemaking 

action. The petition requested that the 

Coast Guard establish a load lineexempted route on Lake Michigan, 

along the eastern coast to Muskegon, MI. 

Upon review of the comments as well as 

analysis of safety considerations and 

other factors described in the discussion 

section, the Coast Guard has decided 

not to proceed with the requested 

rulemaking. The public comments, and 

the Coast Guard’s reasoning for its 

decision, are discussed in this notice. 

DATES: The petition for rulemaking 

published on May 27, 2014 (79 FR 

30061) is denied. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this notice, 

contact Mr. Thomas Jordan, Naval 

Architecture Division (CG–ENG–2), U.S. 

Coast Guard Headquarters, at telephone 

202–372–1370, or by email at 

thomas.d.jordan@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Cheryl 

Collins, Program Manager, Docket 

Operations, telephone 202–366–9826. 

All Federal Register notices, public 

comments, and other documents cited 

in this notice may be viewed in the online docket at www.regulations.gov 

(enter docket number ‘‘USCG–2014– 

0954’’ in the search box). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulatory History and Background: 

The purpose of a load line (LL) 

assignment is to ensure that a vessel is 

seaworthy for operation on exposed 

coastal and offshore waters, including 

the Great Lakes. In general, LL 

assignment requires that vessels are 

robustly constructed, fitted with 

watertight and weathertight closures, 

and are inspected annually to ensure 

that they are being maintained in a 

seaworthy condition. (A more-detailed 

discussion of LL assignment is given in 

our previous Notice of Availability, 79 

FR 30061 on May 27, 2014.) 

Because river barges are not typically 

constructed to the required hull strength 

standards for load line assignment, nor 

subject to the same periodic inspections, 

they are not normally allowed to operate 

on the Great Lakes. However, certain 

river barges are allowed on carefullyevaluated routes, under restricted 

conditions as follows. There are 

currently three such routes on Lake 

Michigan: 

Burns Harbor route: In 1985, a LLexempted route was established along 

the southern shore of Lake Michigan to 

allow river barges to operate under fair 

weather conditions between Calumet 

(Chicago), IL, and Burns Harbor, IN, a 

distance of 27 nautical miles (NM), with 

several ports of refuge along the way 

(the longest distance between them is 

just 11 NM). The tows must remain 

within 5 NM of shore, and the barges are 

prohibited from carrying liquid or 

hazardous cargoes, and must have a 

minimum freeboard of 24 inches. 

Milwaukee route: In 1992, a special 

LL regime was established along the 

western shore of Lake Michigan, 

between Calumet and Milwaukee, WI, a 

distance of 92 NM (the longest distance 

between ports of refuge is 33 NM). This 

special LL regime revised the normal 

robust construction requirements for a 

Great Lakes LL, in conjunction with 

similar cargo restrictions, weather 

limitations, and freeboard assignment as 

for the Burns Harbor route. Barges more 

than 10 years old are required to have 

an initial dry-dock inspection to verify 

the material condition of the hull, but a 

newer barge could obtain the special LL 

provided it passed an initial afloat 

inspection by the American Bureau of 

Shipping (ABS). All barges were subject 

to annual ABS inspections to verify that 

they were being maintained in a 

seaworthy condition. Tows are limited 

to three barges, and the towing vessel 

must be least 1,000 HP. 

Milwaukee route risk assessment 

study: However, the towing industry 

still considered the cost of the special 

LL assignment to be too prohibitive for 

establishing river barge service to 

Milwaukee. Accordingly, in 2000, the 

Port of Milwaukee organized a risk 

assessment (RA) working group that 

included port officials, towing & barge 

companies, and terminal operators (the 

Risk Assessment report can be viewed 

on-line in the docket). The RA group 

reviewed meteorological information 

and evaluated the viability of the ports 

of refuge along the route, and concluded 

that restricting the age of eligible rivers 

barges to 10 years, in conjuction with 

self-inspection and self-certication by 

barge owners/operators, provided the 

same level of seaworthiness assurance 

as LL assignment by ABS. 

The RA meetings were attended by 

USCG representatives, and the 

recommendations were reviewed by the 

Ninth Coast Guard District, which 

endorsed them. The Milwaukee route 

exemption went into effect in 2002. 

Muskegon route: Meanwhile, in 1996, 

the special LL regime for the Milwaukee 

route was extended along the eastern 

shore of Lake Michigan to Muskegon, a 

distance of 119 NM beyond Burns 

Harbor. River barges can still operate as 

far as Burns Harbor without any LL, but 

must obtain the special LL to proceed 

beyond that point to Muskegon. 

Recognizing the longer distance and 

more severe weather conditions on the 

eastern side of Lake Michigan, there 

were some additional requirements 

pertaining to the towing vessel. 

Because the Muskegon route was not 

evaluated as part of the Milwaukee risk 

assessment study, it was not included in 

the exemption. 

Petition for LL exemption on the 

Muskegon route: In October 2013, the 

Coast Guard received two letters 

requesting that we establish a load line 

exemption for river barges on the 

Muskegon route. The basis for the 

request was that the LL requirements 

(route restrictions and load line 

inspection requirements) were 

preventing Michigan from transporting 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS