50248 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed rule 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 5, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20504 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2012–0205; FRL–9931–37– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 

Particulate Matter Contingency 

Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Texas. These revisions pertain to 

contingency measures for particulate 

matter in the City of El Paso. The 

affected contingency measures are the 

paving of alleys and sweeping of streets. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 18, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2012–0205, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Jeffrey Riley at riley.jeffrey@

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 ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2012– 

0205. The 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read 

your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption 

and should be free of any defects or 

viruses. Multimedia submissions (audio, 

video, etc.) must be accompanied by a 

written comment. The written comment 

is considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. The EPA will 

generally not consider comments or 

comment contents located outside of the 

primary submission (i.e. on the web, 

cloud, or other file sharing system). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://

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

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Riley, 214–665–8542, 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Mr. Riley or Mr. Bill 

Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. El Paso PM10 History 

Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, 

the City of El Paso, Texas was 

designated by operation of law as 

nonattainment of the 1987 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for particulate matter (PM) with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10) 

and classified as a moderate 

nonattainment area. The EPA approved 

on January 18, 1994 at 59 FR 02532, the 

El Paso PM10 Attainment Demonstration 

SIP revision. The SIP included, among 

other things, PM control measures and 

a Memorandum of Understanding 

between the City of El Paso and the 

State of Texas (MOU). The EPA 

approved three types of PM control 

measures as contingency measures 

because they went beyond reasonably 

available control measures and were not 

relied upon to show attainment or 

reasonable further progress (RFP). The 

three types of PM control measures 

approved as contingency measures were 

prescribed burning, residential burning, 

and fugitive dust control measures. The 

fugitive dust measures include not only 

controls for roads, streets, alleys, 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 50249 

parking lots, construction and 

demolition sites, and materials 

handling, but also a requirement that 

existing unpaved alleys be paved at a 

rate of 15 miles per year and mechanical 

sweepers remove soil from roads four 

times per year in the city limits and six 

times per week in the central business 

district. The SIP MOU between the City 

of El Paso and the State of Texas 

outlines the responsibilities and 

regulatory requirements for both parties 

in implementing the dust control 

methods. 

B. Texas’ Submittals 

On March 7, 2012, the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) submitted revisions to remove 

the requirement to pave alleys at the 

rate of 15 miles per year, and replace it 

with the following requirements: (1) All 

new alleys must be paved; (2) unpaved 

alleys cannot be used for residential 

garbage and recycling collection; and (3) 

recycled asphalt product (RAP) may be 

used as an alternate means of control for 

unpaved alleys. The revisions also 

changed the street sweeping frequency 

requirement from four times per year to 

three times per year in the city limits 

and from six times per week to four 

times per week in the central business 

district. TCEQ provided supplemental 

information dated December 3, 2014 

updating the unpaved alleys inventory 

between 2010 through 2014. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

the EPA cannot approve a SIP revision 

if the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and RFP, or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

Contingency Measures are a required 

element of an attainment demonstration, 

to be implemented if the area fails to 

attain. In this case, the City 

implemented early the contingency 

measures for paving of alleys and street 

sweeping on an on-going basis since 

1991, even though not required by the 

EPA. Implementation of these measures 

has continued even after the 1994 

attainment date. To demonstrate 

noninterference, Texas provided a 

qualitative analysis of the emission 

reductions achieved by these measures 

coupled with evaluation of air quality 

data to show that the level of emissions 

provided for by the revised early 

implemented contingency measures 

would not interfere with attainment or 

RFP. 

At the time of the EPA’s approval of 

the paving of alleys as a contingency 

measure, there were an estimated 89 

miles of unpaved alleys, and all 

unpaved roads in the city of El Paso 

were required to be paved in order to 

reduce this source category’s projected 

1994 PM10 emissions by 0.5 percent. 

The State documents that the inventory 

of unpaved alleys in El Paso has 

decreased from 66% of total alley miles 

in 1991, to 16% of total alley miles in 

2010, with approximately 23 miles of 

unpaved alleys remaining. The 

supplemental information provided to 

the EPA shows that between 2010 

through 2014, the percentage of 

unpaved alleys has continued to 

decrease to 13% of the total inventory, 

with approximately 17 miles of unpaved 

alleys remaining. A total of 72 alley 

miles have been paved, the estimated 

emissions reductions for 1994 were met 

in 1994, and emissions reductions 

continued after that date. In the SIP 

submittal, the City commits to continue 

paving alleys. The additional 

compliance option of using RAP as a 

paving material helps ensure continued 

reduction of the inventory of 

uncontrolled alleys. The EPA agrees that 

RAP can be effective in suppressing 

dust. 

The overall inventory of unpaved 

alleys in El Paso has continued to 

decrease, and thereby further reductions 

in PM10 levels have occurred well 

beyond the decrease in inventory of 

unpaved alleys approved as the 

contingency measures. Furthermore, 

there will be no increase in unpaved 

alleys because the SIP revision requires 

that all new alleys be paved. As a 

practical matter, the EPA recognizes that 

a rate of 15 miles of paving per year 

could not be maintained unless the City 

were to create unpaved alleys in order 

to pave them. 

As additional support for the change 

to the rate of paving of alleys, the 

submitted revision prohibits garbage 

collection in unpaved alleys; the City 

since 1997 stopped garbage collection in 

paved and unpaved alleys. The 

significant paving progress, the 

requirement to pave new alleys, and 

prohibition of garbage collection in 

alleys have reduced the overall amount 

of fugitive dust in the El Paso area. In 

the SIP submittal, the City commits to 

continue sweeping on a different 

schedule. Because the emissions 

reductions from paving and street 

sweeping are from already-implemented 

contingency measures, thus above what 

was needed to show attainment, and the 

reductions continue, the PM reductions 

from these measures are above and 

beyond what is required to show 

continued maintenance of the NAAQS. 

The State’s submittal also relied upon 

ambient monitoring data for the years 

2007 through 2009 to demonstrate there 

will be no interference with attainment. 

The El Paso area continues to monitor 

attainment of the PM10 NAAQS based 

on data for all three years from 2011 

through 2013. See the TSD for 

additional information on the 

monitoring data. 

Because the fugitive dust controls are 

early implemented contingency 

measures, they were not relied upon for 

demonstrating attainment or RFP; 

paving of new alleys is required; the 

inventory of pre-existing unpaved alleys 

has been reduced from 66% of total 

alleys to 13%; and paving continues 

using the effective RAP, the EPA finds 

that the SIP revision will not interfere 

with the area’s ability to continue to 

attain or maintain the affected NAAQS 

or other CAA requirements. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve revisions 

to the Texas SIP that pertain to changes 

to the PM10 contingency measures in the 

City of El Paso. The State’s revisions 

submitted on March 7, 2012 amend rule 

30 TAC § 111.147(1)(E) by removing the 

requirement to pave alleys at the rate of 

15 miles/year, and replace it with the 

following requirements: 

(1) All new alleys must be paved; 

(2) Alleys may not be used for trash 

pickup; and 

(3) The use of recycled asphalt 

product as defined in § 111.145 and 

§ 111.147(1) may be used as an alternate 

means of particulate matter control for 

alleys. 

We also are proposing to approve 30 

TAC § 111.145 and § 111.147(1) that 

define RAP, and 30 TAC § 111.147(2) 

that changes the sweeping frequency 

requirement from four to three time per 

year in the city limits and from six to 

four times per week in the El Paso 

central business district. We have 

evaluated the State’s submittals and 

have determined that they meet the 

applicable requirements of the Clean Air 

Act and EPA regulations, and are 

consistent with EPA policy. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

In this action, we are proposing to 

include in a final rule regulatory text 

that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with the 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

revisions to the Texas regulations as 

described in the Proposed Action 

section above. We have made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
50250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 160 / Wednesday, August 19, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

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

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(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 the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule 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). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 5, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–20499 Filed 8–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 56 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2014–0616; FRL–9929–98– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS53 

Amendments to Regional Consistency 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

revise its Regional Consistency 

regulations to ensure the EPA has the 

flexibility necessary to implement Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) programs on a 

national scale while addressing court 

rulings that concern certain agency 

actions under the Act. In addition, the 

proposed revisions would help to foster 

overall fairness and predictability 

regarding the scope and impact of 

judicial decisions under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 19, 2015. 

Public hearing. If requested by 

September 3, 2015, then we will hold a 

public hearing. Additional information 

about the hearing, if requested, will be 

published in a subsequent Federal 

Register document. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2014–0616, to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or withdrawn. The EPA may 

publish any comment received to its 

public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

If you need to include CBI as part of 

your comment, please visit http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html 

for instructions. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. For additional submission 

methods, the full EPA public comment 

policy, and general guidance on making 

effective comments, please visit http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information, contact Greg 

Nizich, Air Quality Policy Division, 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards (C504–03), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone 

number (919) 541–3078; fax number 

(919) 541–5509; email address: 

nizich.greg@epa.gov. 

To request a public hearing or 

information pertaining to a public 

hearing on this document, contact Ms. 

Pamela Long, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–01), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

0641; fax number (919) 541–5509; email 

address: long.pam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated entities. The Administrator 

determined that this action is subject to 

the provisions of CAA section 307(d). 

See CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the 

provisions of CAA section 307(d) apply 

to ‘‘such other actions as the 

Administrator may determine). These 

are amendments to existing regulations 

and could affect your facility if it is the 

subject of a CAA-related ruling by a 

federal court. 

The information in this 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble is organized as follows: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this document 

and other related information? 

D. How can I find information about a 

possible public hearing? 

E. What acronyms, abbreviations and units 

are used in this preamble? 

II. Purpose 

III. Background 

A. Purpose of the Regional Consistency 

Regulations 

B. Establishing the Regional Consistency 

Regulations 

C. Reasons for Revising the Regional 

Consistency Regulations 

IV. Proposed Revisions to the Regional 

Consistency Rule 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS