We note that CARB submitted its 2017 Quantitative Milestone Report
to the EPA on December 20, 2018.\446\ This report includes a
certification that CARB and the District met the 2017 quantitative
milestones for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS and discusses the State's and District's progress on implementing
the three CARB measures and six District measures identified in
Appendix H as quantitative milestones for the 2017 milestone year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \446\ Letter from Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer, CARB, to
Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, with
attachment, December 20, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
a. Reasonable Further Progress
    We have evaluated the RFP demonstration in Appendix H of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and, for the following reasons, propose to find
that it satisfies the statutory and regulatory requirements for RFP.
First, the Plan contains an anticipated implementation schedule for the
attainment control strategy, including all BACM, BACT, and MSM control
measures and the State's and District's aggregate tonnage commitments,
as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(1). The implementation schedule is
found in Table 4-4, Table 4-5, and Table 4-8 of the 2018
PM2.5 Plan and in Table H-2 of Appendix H. The 2018
PM2.5 Plan documents the State's and District's conclusion
that they are implementing all BACM, BACT, and MSM for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions in the Valley as
expeditiously as practicable.\447\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \447\ The BACM/BACT and MSM control strategy that provides the
basis for these emissions projections is described in Chapter 4,
App. C, and App. D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the RFP demonstration contains projected emission levels
for direct PM2.5 and NOX for each applicable
milestone year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(2). These projections
are based on continued implementation of the existing control measures
in the area (i.e., baseline measures), recent revisions to the
District's residential wood burning rule (Rule 4901), and commitments
to achieve additional reductions from new measures in 2024, and reflect
full implementation of the State's, District's, and MPOs' attainment
control strategy for these pollutants. With regard to the 2026
milestone year, we note that the projection is based on reductions from
baseline measures and on an assumption that the amount of reductions
from new control measures that will be achieved in 2026 is the same as
those achieved in 2024 and 2025.
    Third, the projected emissions levels based on the implementation
schedule in the Plan demonstrate that the control strategy will achieve
reasonable further progress toward attainment between the 2013 baseline
year and the 2024 attainment year as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(3).
Tables 11 and 12 of this proposed rule show decreases in emissions
levels in each milestone year, leading to the achievement of the
reductions required for attainment in 2024. Although the direct
PM2.5 emissions increase slightly (0.1 tpd) over attainment
year levels in the 2026 post-attainment milestone year, we expect that
this small emissions increase will have de minimis impacts on the
area's attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Finally, the RFP demonstration shows that overall pollutant
emissions will be at levels that reflect stepwise progress between the
base year and the attainment year and provides a justification for the
selected implementation schedule, as required by 40 CFR 51.1012(a)(4).
The steeper decline in emissions in 2024 is primarily due to a
commitment by the State and District to achieve reductions from new
control measures beginning in 2024. The State's and District's
justifications for their selected implementation schedules, i.e., for
the delay to 2024 in their respective commitments to achieve emissions
reductions from new or revised control measures, include the time
needed for rulemaking processes, the time needed for industry to comply
with new regulatory requirements, the need to resolve feasibility
issues for emerging technologies, and the time needed to prepare
technologies and infrastructure for market-scale adoption.
    We note that although both the State and District have committed to
propose to their respective boards certain new or revised control
measures in the years leading up to the 2024 attainment year, the only
enforceable commitment in the Plan that requires adoption of control
measures is the tonnage commitment for 2024, which provides the basis
for the stepwise approach to RFP. Because of the size of the tonnage
commitments for the 2024 attainment year, and the absence of
commitments to adopt measures or achieve emission reductions in earlier
years, we request comment on whether additional enforceable commitments
for regulatory action to implement emission controls in the interim
years (i.e., in 2022 or 2023) are necessary to ensure that the stepwise
approach to emission reductions in the Plan is consistent with
reasonable further progress toward expeditious attainment. Such
commitments may include commitments to achieve specified amounts of
emission reductions before 2024 (i.e., aggregate tonnage commitments)
or commitments to adopt specific new or revised control measures by
specific dates before 2024, and may provide a basis for reducing the
size of the total tonnage commitment for the 2024 attainment year.
b. Quantitative Milestones
    Appendix H of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan identifies milestone
dates (i.e., December 31 of 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2026) that are
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and target
emissions levels for direct PM2.5 and NOX to be
achieved by these milestone dates through implementation of the Plan's
control strategy. These target emission levels and associated control
requirements provide for objective evaluation of the area's progress
towards attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The State's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to take
action on or to implement specific measures listed in the State's
control measure commitments that apply to heavy-duty trucks and buses,
light-duty vehicles, and non-road equipment sources and may provide
substantial reductions in emissions of direct PM2.5 and
NOX from mobile sources in the San Joaquin Valley.
Similarly, the District's quantitative milestones in Appendix H are to
take action on or to implement specific measures listed in the
District's control measure commitments that apply to sources such as
residential wood burning, commercial charbroiling, conservation
management practices,

glass melting furnaces, and internal combustion engines and that may
provide substantial reductions in emission of direct PM2.5
and NOX from stationary sources. These milestones provide an
objective means for tracking the State's and District's progress in
implementing their respective control measure and aggregate tonnage
commitments and, thus, provide for objective evaluation of the San
Joaquin Valley's progress toward timely attainment.
    For these reasons, we propose to determine that the SJV
PM2.5 Plan satisfies the requirements for quantitative
milestones in CAA section 189(c) and 40 CFR 51.1013 for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.

F. Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires federal actions in nonattainment
and maintenance areas to conform to the SIP's goals of eliminating or
reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and
achieving expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the
SIP's goals means that such actions will not: (1) Cause or contribute
to violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any interim
milestone.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
EPA's transportation conformity rule, codified at 40 CFR part 93,
subpart A (``Transportation Conformity Rule''). Under this rule,
metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in nonattainment and
maintenance areas coordinate with state and local air quality and
transportation agencies, EPA, FHWA, and FTA to demonstrate that an
area's regional transportation plans (RTP) and transportation
improvement programs (TIP) conform to the applicable SIP. This
demonstration is typically done by showing that estimated emissions
from existing and planned highway and transit systems are less than or
equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs or ``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy plans applicable to the area. An
attainment or maintenance plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS should
include budgets for the attainment year, each required RFP milestone
year, or the last year of the maintenance plan, as appropriate, for
direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors subject to
transportation conformity analyses. Budgets are generally established
for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors and must
reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in the
attainment and RFP demonstrations.\448\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \448\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, Serious area
PM2.5 attainment plans must include appropriate quantitative
milestones and projected RFP emission levels for direct
PM2.5 and all PM2.5 plan precursors in each
milestone year.\449\ For an area designated nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS before January 15, 2015, the attainment plan
must contain quantitative milestones to be achieved no later than three
years after December 31, 2014, and every 3 years thereafter until the
milestone date that falls within three years after the applicable
attainment date.\450\ As the EPA explained in the preamble to the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule, it is important to include a
post-attainment year quantitative milestone to ensure that, if the area
fails to attain by the attainment date, the EPA can continue to monitor
the area's progress toward attainment while the state develops a new
attainment plan.\451\ Although the post-attainment year quantitative
milestone is a required element of a Serious area plan, it is not
necessary to demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use
the 2026 budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such
time as the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \449\ 40 CFR 51.1012(a), 51.1013(a)(1).
    \450\ 40 CFR 51.1013(a)(4) and 81 FR 58010, 58058 and 58063-
58064 (August 24, 2016).
    \451\ 81 FR 58010, 58063-58064.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PM2.5 plans should identify budgets for direct
PM2.5, NOX and all other PM2.5
precursors for which on-road emissions are determined to significantly
contribute to PM2.5 levels in the area for each RFP
milestone year and the attainment year, if the plan demonstrates
attainment. All direct PM2.5 SIP budgets should include
direct PM2.5 motor vehicle emissions from tailpipes, brake
wear, and tire wear. With respect to PM2.5 from re-entrained
road dust and emissions of VOC, SO2, and/or ammonia, the
transportation conformity provisions of 40 CFR part 93, subpart A,
apply only if the EPA Regional Administrator or the director of the
state air agency has made a finding that emissions of these pollutants
within the area are a significant contributor to the PM2.5
nonattainment problem and has so notified the MPO and Department of
Transportation (DOT), or if the applicable implementation plan (or
implementation plan submission) includes any of these pollutants in the
approved (or adequate) budget as part of the RFP, attainment, or
maintenance strategy.\452\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \452\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), 93.102(b)(2)(v), and 93.122(f); see
also Conformity Rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-36 (July 1,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By contrast, transportation conformity requirements apply with
respect to emissions of NOX unless both the EPA Regional
Administrator and the director of the state air agency have made a
finding that transportation-related emissions of NOX within
the nonattainment area are not a significant contributor to the
PM2.5 nonattainment problem and have so notified the MPO and
DOT, or the applicable implementation plan (or implementation plan
submission) does not establish an approved (or adequate) budget for
such emissions as part of the RFP, attainment, or maintenance
strategy.\453\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \453\ 40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not always necessary for states to establish motor vehicle
emissions budgets for all of the PM2.5 precursors. The
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule allows a state to demonstrate
that emissions of certain precursors do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels that exceed the NAAQS in a nonattainment area,
in which case the state may exclude such precursor(s) from its control
evaluations for the specific NAAQS at issue. If a state successfully
demonstrates that the emissions of one or more of the PM2.5
precursors from all sources do not contribute significantly to
PM2.5 levels in the subject area, then it is not necessary
to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets for that precursor(s).
    Alternatively, the transportation conformity regulations contain
criteria for determining whether emissions of one or more
PM2.5 precursors are insignificant for transportation
conformity purposes.\454\ For a pollutant or precursor to be considered
an insignificant contributor based on the transportation conformity
rule's criteria, the control strategy SIP must demonstrate that it
would be unreasonable to expect that such an area would experience
enough motor vehicle emissions growth in that pollutant and/or
precursor for a NAAQS violation to occur. Insignificance determinations
are based on factors such as air quality, SIP motor vehicle control
measures, trends and projections of motor vehicle emissions, and the
percentage of the total attainment plan emissions inventory for the
NAAQS at issue that is comprised of motor vehicle

emissions. The EPA's rationale for providing for insignificance
determinations is described in the July 1, 2004 revision to the
Transportation Conformity Rule.\455\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \454\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
    \455\ 69 FR 40004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity trading mechanisms are allowed under 40
CFR 93.124 where a state establishes appropriate mechanisms for such
trades. The basis for the trading mechanism is the SIP attainment
modeling that establishes the relative contribution of each
PM2.5 precursor pollutant. The applicability of emission
trading between conformity budgets for conformity purposes is described
in 40 CFR 93.124(c).
    The EPA's process for determining the adequacy of a budget consists
of three basic steps: (1) Notifying the public of a SIP submittal; (2)
providing the public the opportunity to comment on the budgets during a
public comment period; and (3) making a finding of adequacy or
inadequacy.\456\ The EPA can notify the public by either posting an
announcement that the EPA has received SIP budgets on the EPA's
adequacy website (40 CFR 93.118(f)(1)), or through a Federal Register
notice of proposed rulemaking when the EPA reviews the adequacy of an
implementation plan budget simultaneously with its review and action on
the SIP itself (40 CFR 93.118(f)(2)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \456\ 40 CFR 93.118(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of State's Submission
    The 2018 PM2.5 Plan includes budgets for direct
PM2.5 and NOX emissions for each RFP milestone
year (2017, 2020, and 2023), the projected attainment year (2024), and
one post-attainment year quantitative milestone (2026).\457\ The Plan
establishes separate direct PM2.5 and NOX subarea
budgets for each county, or partial county (for Kern County), in the
San Joaquin Valley.\458\ CARB calculated the budgets using
EMFAC2014,\459\ CARB's latest version of the EMFAC model for estimating
emissions from on-road vehicles operating in California that was
available at the time of Plan development, and the latest modeled
vehicle miles traveled and speed distributions from the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs from the Final 2017 Federal Transportation Improvement
Plan, adopted in September 2016. The budgets reflect winter average
emissions because those emissions are linked with the District's
attainment demonstration for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \457\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, Table 3-2.
    \458\ 40 CFR 93.124(c) and (d).
    \459\ EMFAC is short for EMission FACtor. The EPA announced the
availability of the EMFAC2014 model for use in state implementation
plan development and transportation conformity in California on
December 14, 2015. The EPA's approval of the EMFAC2014 emissions
model for SIP and conformity purposes was effective on the date of
publication of the notice in the Federal Register. EMFAC2014 must be
used for all new regional emissions analyses and CO, PM10
and PM2.5 hot-spot analyses that are started on or after
December 14, 2017, which is the end of the grace period for
EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements set forth in the PM2.5
SIP Requirements Rule, the SJV PM2.5 Plan contains RFP
budgets for 2026, which is the year following the attainment year. As
explained below, we are not taking action on the 2026 budgets at this
time. The EPA is also not reviewing the submitted motor vehicle
emissions budgets for 2017. These budgets would not be used in any
future transportation conformity determinations because the plan
contains budgets for 2020 and other years in the future.
    The direct PM2.5 budgets include tailpipe, brake wear,
and tire wear emissions but do not include paved road dust, unpaved
road dust, and road construction dust emissions.\460\ The State did not
include budgets for VOC, SO2, or ammonia. As discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, the State submitted a PM2.5
precursor demonstration documenting that control of these precursors
would not significantly contribute to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the EPA is proposing to approve the
precursor demonstration. Therefore, if the EPA approves the
demonstration, the State would not be required to submit budgets for
these precursors. The State included a discussion of the significance/
insignificance factors for ammonia, SO2, and VOC, which
would demonstrate a finding of insignificance under the transportation
conformity rule.\461\ The State is not required to include re-entrained
road dust in the budgets under section 93.103(b)(3) unless the EPA or
the State has made a finding that these emissions are significant.
Neither the State nor the EPA has made such a finding. The Plan does
include a discussion of the significance/insignificance factors for re-
entrained road dust.\462\ The budgets included in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan are shown in Table 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \460\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-122 to D-123.
    \461\ 40 CFR 93.109(f).
    \462\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-121 and D-122.

                                                 Table 14--Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets for the San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 PM2.5 Standard
                                                                                [Winter average, tpd]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          2017                      2020                      2023                      2024                      2026
                          Budget year                          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX         PM2.5         NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fresno........................................................          0.9         29.3          0.9         25.9          0.8         15.5          0.8         15.0          0.8         14.3
Kern..........................................................          0.8         28.7          0.8         23.8          0.7         13.6          0.7         13.4          0.8         12.8
Kings.........................................................          0.2          5.9          0.2          4.9          0.2          2.9          0.2          2.8          0.2          2.7
Madera........................................................          0.2          5.5          0.2          4.4          0.2          2.6          0.2          2.5          0.2          2.3
Merced........................................................          0.3         11.0          0.3          9.1          0.3          5.5          0.3          5.3          0.3          4.9
San Joaquin...................................................          0.7         15.5          0.6         12.3          0.6          7.9          0.6          7.6          0.6          6.9
Stanislaus....................................................          0.4         12.3          0.4          9.8          0.4          6.2          0.4          6.0          0.4          5.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 PM2.5 Plan, Appendix D, Table 3-2. Budgets are rounded to the nearest tenth of a ton.
Note: We are not proposing any action at this time on the 2017 RFP or the 2026 post-attainment year RFP budgets.

    In the submittal letter for the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that the EPA limit the duration the approval of the budgets
to the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding
for any subsequently submitted budgets.\463\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \463\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conformity Trading Mechanism
    The 2018 PM2.5 Plan also includes a proposed trading
mechanism for transportation conformity analyses that would allow
future decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile
sources to offset any on-road increases in direct PM2.5
emissions. For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the State is proposing
to use

the 2:1 NOX: PM2.5 ratio. The ratio is based on a
sensitivity analysis based on a 30% reduction of NOX or
PM2.5 emissions and the corresponding impact on design
values at sites in Bakersfield and Fresno.
    To ensure that the trading mechanism does not affect the ability of
the San Joaquin Valley to meet the NOX budget, the
NOX emission reductions available to supplement the
PM2.5 budget would only be those remaining after the
NOX budget has been met.\464\ The Plan also provides that
the San Joaquin Valley MPOs shall clearly document the calculations
used in the trading, along with any additional reductions of
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the conformity
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \464\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126 and D-127.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    The EPA generally first conducts a preliminary review of budgets
submitted with an attainment or maintenance plan for PM2.5
for adequacy, prior to taking action on the plan itself, and did so
with respect to the PM2.5 budgets in the 2018
PM2.5 Plan. On June 18, 2019, the EPA announced the
availability of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan with MVEBs and a 30-day
public comment period. This announcement was posted on the EPA's
Adequacy website at: https://www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/state-implementation-plans-sip-submissions-currently-under-epa. The comment period for this notification ended on July 18,
2019. We did not receive any comments during this comment period.
    Based on our proposal to approve the State's demonstration that
emissions of ammonia, SO2, and VOCs do not contribute
significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley, as discussed in
section IV.B of this preamble, and the information about ammonia,
SO2, and VOC emissions in the Plan, the EPA proposes to find
that it is not necessary to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets
for transportation-related emissions of ammonia, SO2, and
VOC to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the San
Joaquin Valley. Based on the information about re-entrained road dust
in the Plan and in accordance with 40 CFR 93.102(b)(3), the EPA
proposes to find that it is not necessary to include re-entrained road
dust emissions in the budgets for 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
in the San Joaquin Valley.
    For the reasons discussed in sections IV.D and IV.E of this
proposed rule, the EPA is proposing to approve the RFP and attainment
demonstrations, respectively, in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan. The
2020 and 2023 RFP budgets and 2024 attainment budgets, as shown in
Table 14 of this preamble, are consistent with these demonstrations,
are clearly identified and precisely quantified, and meet all other
applicable statutory and regulatory requirements including the adequacy
criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and (5). For these reasons, the EPA
proposes to approve the budgets listed in Table 14. We provide a more
detailed discussion in section IV of the EPA's General Evaluation TSD.
We are not proposing to approve the 2017 budget or the post-attainment
year 2026 RFP budget at this time. The budgets that the EPA is
proposing to approve relate to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
only, and our proposed approval does not affect the status of the
previously-approved MVEBs for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
related trading mechanism, which remain in effect for that
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Although the post-attainment year quantitative milestone is a
required element of the Serious area plan, it is not necessary to
demonstrate transportation conformity for 2026 or to use the 2026
budgets in transportation conformity determinations until such time as
the area fails to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore,
the EPA is not taking action on the submitted budgets for 2026 in the
SJV PM2.5 Plan at this time. Additionally, the EPA has not
yet started the adequacy process for the 2026 budgets.
    If the EPA were either to find adequate or to approve the post-
attainment milestone year budgets now, those budgets would have to be
used in transportation conformity determinations that are made after
the effective date of the adequacy finding or approval even if the San
Joaquin Valley ultimately attains the PM2.5 NAAQS by the
Serious area attainment date. This would mean that the San Joaquin
Valley MPOs would be required to demonstrate conformity for the post-
attainment date milestone year and all later years addressed in the
conformity determination (e.g., the last year of the metropolitan
transportation plan) to the post-attainment date RFP budgets rather
than the budgets associated with the attainment year for the area
(i.e., the budgets for 2024). The EPA does not believe that it is
necessary to demonstrate conformity using these post-attainment year
budgets in areas that either the EPA anticipates will attain by the
attainment date or in areas that attain by the attainment date.
    If and when the EPA determines that the San Joaquin Valley has
failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date, the EPA would begin the budget adequacy and
approval processes for the post-attainment year (2026) budgets. If the
EPA finds the 2026 budgets adequate or approves them, those budgets
will have to be used in subsequent transportation conformity
determinations. The EPA believes that initiating the process to act on
the submitted post-attainment year MVEBs following a determination that
the area has failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date
ensures that transportation activities will not cause or contribute to
new violations, increase the frequency or severity of any existing
violations, or delay timely attainment or any required interim emission
reductions or milestones in the San Joaquin Valley PM2.5
nonattainment area, consistent with the requirements of CAA section
176(c)(1)(B).
    As noted above, the State included a trading mechanism to be used
in transportation conformity analyses that would be used in conjunction
with the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, as allowed for
under 40 CFR 93.124(b). This trading mechanism would allow future
decreases in NOX emissions from on-road mobile sources to
offset any on-road increases in PM2.5, using a 2:1
NOX:PM2.5 ratio. To ensure that the trading
mechanism does not affect the ability to meet the NOX
budget, the Plan provides that the NOX emission reductions
available to supplement the PM2.5 budget would only be those
remaining after the NOX budget has been met. The San Joaquin
Valley MPOs will have to document clearly the calculations used in the
trading when demonstrating conformity, along with any additional
reductions of NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the
conformity analysis. The trading calculations must be performed prior
to the final rounding to demonstrate conformity with the budgets.
    The EPA has reviewed the trading mechanism as described on pages D-
125 through D-127 in Appendix D of the 2018 PM2.5 Plan and
finds it is appropriate for transportation conformity purposes in the
San Joaquin Valley for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The
methodology for estimating the trading ratio for conformity purposes is
essentially an update (based on newer modeling) of the approach that
the EPA previously approved for the 2008 PM2.5 Plan for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS \465\ and the 2012

PM2.5 Plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\466\
The State's approach in the previous plans was to model the ambient
PM2.5 effect of areawide NOX emissions reductions
and of areawide direct PM2.5 reductions, and to express the
ratio of these modeled sensitivities as an interpollutant trading
ratio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \465\ 80 FR 1816, 1841 (January 13, 2015) (noting the EPA's
prior approval of MVEBs for the 1997 annual and 24-hour
PM2.5 standards in the 2008 PM2.5 Plan at 76
FR 69896).
    \466\ 81 FR 59876 (August 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the updated analysis for the 2018 PM2.5 plan, the
State completed separate sensitivity analyses for the annual and 24-
hour standards and modeled only transportation related sources in the
nonattainment area. The ratio the State is proposing to use for
transportation conformity purposes is derived from air quality modeling
that evaluated the effect of reductions in transportation-related
NOX and PM2.5 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley
on ambient concentrations at the Bakersfield-California Avenue,
Bakersfield-Planz, Fresno-Garland, and Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitoring sites. The modeling that the State performed to evaluate the
effectiveness of NOX and PM2.5 reductions on
ambient 24-hour concentrations showed NOX:PM2.5
ratios that range from a high of 2.3 at the Bakersfield-California
Avenue monitor to a low of 1.6 at the Fresno-Hamilton & Winery
monitor.\467\ We find that the State's approach is a reasonable method
to use to develop ratios for transportation conformity purposes. We
therefore propose to approve the 2:1 NOX for
PM2.5 trading mechanism as enforceable components of the
transportation conformity program for the San Joaquin Valley for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. If approved, this trading ratio will
replace the 8:1 NOX for PM2.5 trading ratio
approved for the San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \467\ 2018 PM2.5 Plan, App. D, D-126.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the transportation conformity rule, once budgets are
approved, they cannot be superseded by revised budgets submitted for
the same CAA purpose and the same year(s) addressed by the previously
approved SIP until the EPA approves the revised budgets as a SIP
revision. In other words, as a general matter, such approved budgets
cannot be superseded by revised budgets found adequate, but rather only
through approval of the revised budgets, unless the EPA specifies
otherwise in its approval of a SIP by limiting the duration of the
approval to last only until subsequently submitted budgets are found
adequate.\468\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \468\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the submittal letter for the SJV PM2.5 Plan, CARB
requested that we limit the duration our approval of the budgets to the
period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy finding for any
subsequently submitted budgets.\469\ The transportation conformity rule
allows us to limit the approval of budgets.\470\ However, we will
consider a state's request to limit an approval of its MVEBs only if
the request includes the following elements: \471\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \469\ Letter dated May 9, 2019, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9,
3.
    \470\ 40 CFR 93.118(e)(1).
    \471\ 67 FR 69141 (November 15, 2002), limiting our prior
approval of MVEBs in certain California SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An acknowledgement and explanation as to why the budgets
under consideration have become outdated or deficient;
     A commitment to update the budgets as part of a
comprehensive SIP update; and
     A request that the EPA limit the duration of its approval
to the period before new budgets have been found to be adequate for
transportation conformity purposes.
    CARB's request includes an explanation for why the budgets have
become, or will become, outdated or deficient. In short, CARB has
requested that we limit the duration of the approval of the budgets in
light of the EPA's recent approval of EMFAC2017, an updated version of
the model (EMFAC2014) used for the budgets in the 2018 PM2.5
Plan.\472\ EMFAC2017 updates vehicle mix and emissions data of the
previously approved version of the model, EMFAC2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \472\ On August 15, 2019, the EPA approved and announced the
availability of EMFAC2017, the latest update to the EMFAC model for
use by the State and local governments to meet CAA requirements. 84
FR 41717.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the EPA's approval of EMFAC2017, CARB explains that the
budgets in the 2018 PM2.5 Plan, which we are proposing to
approve in today's action, will become outdated and will need to be
revised using EMFAC2017. In addition, CARB states that, without the
ability to replace the budgets using the budget adequacy process, the
benefits of using the updated data may not be realized for a year or
more after the updated SIP (with the EMFAC2017-derived budgets) is
submitted, due to the length of the SIP approval process. We find that
CARB's explanation for limiting the duration of the approval of the
budgets is appropriate and provides us with a reasonable basis for
limiting the duration of the approval of the budgets.
    We note that CARB has not committed to update the budgets as part
of a comprehensive SIP update, but as a practical matter, CARB must
submit a SIP revision that includes updated demonstrations as well as
the updated budgets to meet the adequacy criteria in 40 CFR
93.118(e)(4).\473\ Therefore, we do not need a specific commitment for
such a plan at this time. For the reasons provided above, and in light
of CARB's explanation for why the budgets will become outdated and
should be replaced upon an adequacy finding for updated budgets, we
propose to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2018 PM2.5 Plan to the period before we find revised budgets
based on EMFAC2017 to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \473\ Under 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4), the EPA will not find a budget
in a submitted SIP to be adequate unless, among other criteria, the
budgets, when considered together with all other emissions sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for RFP and attainment.
40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Major Stationary Source Control Requirements Under CAA Section
189(e)

    Section 189(e) of the Act specifically requires that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 also apply to major stationary sources of
PM2.5 precursors, except where the Administrator determines
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM2.5
levels that exceed the standards in the area.\474\ The control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of direct
PM2.5 in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area
include, at minimum, the requirements of a nonattainment NSR permit
program meeting the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(5) and
189(b)(3).\475\ As part of our January 20, 2016 final action to
reclassify the San Joaquin Valley area as Serious nonattainment for the
2006 PM2.5 standards, we established a February 21, 2017
deadline for the State to submit nonattainment NSR SIP revisions
addressing the requirements of CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 189(e) of the
Act for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, to the extent those
requirements had not already been met by the nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions due May 7, 2016 for purposes of implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\476\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \474\ General Preamble at 13539 and 13541-42.
    \475\ CAA section 189(b)(1) (requiring that Serious area plans
include provisions submitted to meet the requirements for Moderate
areas in section 189(a)(1)).
    \476\ 81 FR 2993, 2994 (January 20, 2016) and 40 CFR 52.245(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    California submitted nonattainment NSR SIP revisions to address the
subpart 4 requirements for the San

Joaquin Valley Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area on November
20, 2019.\477\ We are not proposing any action on this submission at
this time. We will act on this submission through a separate
rulemaking, as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \477\ Letter dated November 15, 2019 from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Michael Stoker, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX. California previously submitted nonattainment NSR SIP
revisions for the San Joaquin Valley to address the subpart 4
requirements for Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment areas, and
the EPA approved these SIP revisions on September 17, 2014 (79 FR
55637).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Summary of Proposed Actions and Request for Public Comment

    For the reasons discussed in this proposed rule, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA proposes to approve, as a revision to the California
SIP, the following portions of the SJV PM2.5 Plan for the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
     The 2013 base year emission inventories (CAA section
172(c)(3));
     the demonstration that BACM, including BACT, for the
control of direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 plan precursors
will be implemented no later than 4 years after the area was
reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
     the demonstration (including air quality modeling) that
the Plan provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than December 31, 2024 (CAA sections 189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e));
     plan provisions that require RFP toward attainment by the
applicable date (CAA section 172(c)(2));
     quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every
three years until the area is redesignated attainment and that
demonstrate RFP toward attainment by the applicable attainment date
(CAA section 189(c));
     motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2020, 2023, and 2024
as shown in Table 14 of this proposed rule (CAA section 176(c) and 40
CFR part 93, subpart A); and
     the inter-pollutant trading mechanism provided for use in
transportation conformity analyses for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,
in accordance with 40 CFR 93.124(b).
    The EPA is proposing to grant the State's request for extension of
the Serious area attainment date from December 31, 2019, to December
31, 2024, based on a conclusion that the State has satisfied the
requirements for such extensions in section 188(e) of the Act. We may,
however, reconsider this proposal or deny California's request to
extend the attainment date if the EPA concludes based on new
information or public comments that the State has not satisfied the
requirements for such extensions.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal
for the next 30 days.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state
plans as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
    For these reasons, this proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, 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, Ammonia, Carbon
monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 27, 2020.
John W. Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-05914 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8274-8278]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03152]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0536; FRL-9923-13-Region 6]

Determination of Nonattainment and Reclassification of the
Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Texas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine that the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area did not attain the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS or standard) by June 15, 2013, the attainment deadline
set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for a Serious ozone
nonattainment area under this standard. This proposal is based on EPA's
review of complete, quality assured and certified ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2010-2012 monitoring period that are available
in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database. If the EPA finalizes this
determination, the DFW area will be reclassified by operation of law as
a Severe ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
The EPA is also proposing that Texas must submit to the EPA the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions to address the Severe ozone
nonattainment area requirements of the Act no later than one year after
the effective date of the final rulemaking for this reclassification.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
OAR-2014-0536, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.
     Email: Ms. Carrie Paige at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: 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-
2014-0536. 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 the
disclosure of which 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 that 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 should 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Evaluation of the DFW Area's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Data
III. The Consequences of Reclassification
IV. The 2008 Ozone Standard and Its Effect on Reclassification of
the DFW Area
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards

    Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires the EPA to
establish a 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 and the
environment. 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. Also, these standards provide
information to residents of the United States about the air quality in
their communities.

B. The 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

    Ozone is a gas composed of three oxygen atoms. It is not usually
emitted directly into the air, but at ground level is created by a
chemical reaction between volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight.\1\ On July
18, 1997, the EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts
per million (ppm).\2\ See 62 FR 38856 and 40 CFR 50.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For additional information on ozone, please visit
www.epa.gov/groundlevelozone.
    \2\ In this action we refer to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as
``the 1997 ozone standard.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the EPA regulations in section 2.3 of 40 CFR part
50, Appendix I: ``The primary and secondary ozone ambient air quality
standards are met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-
year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ozone concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. The number of
significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the rounding
convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with the level
of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed value is
rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up. Thus, a
computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the
smallest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.'' \3\ In addition,

the ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-year period must meet
a data completeness requirement, which is met when the average
percentage of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater than
90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For ease of communication, many reports of ozone
concentrations are given in parts per billion (ppb); ppb = ppm x
1000. Thus, 0.085 ppm becomes 85 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The SIP and its Relation to the 1997 Ozone Standard

    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 meet the NAAQS
established by the EPA. Each state must submit these regulations and
control strategies to the EPA for approval and incorporation into the
Federally-enforceable SIP. Each Federally-approved SIP protects air
quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin.
The SIPs may contain state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.
    For ozone nonattainment areas, requirements for SIPs are contained
in Part D, subparts 1 and 2 of the Act. Under subpart 2, the applicable
control requirements become increasingly more stringent according to an
area's classification. The five classifications are Marginal, Moderate,
Serious, Severe or Extreme, with Marginal areas subject to the least
stringent requirements and Extreme areas subject to the most.
    The EPA published two sets of regulations governing how the
provisions of the CAA would apply for purposes of implementing the 1997
ozone standard. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA promulgated the
Phase 1 Rule, which addressed, among other matters, classifications for
areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 ozone standard.
    The EPA published a second rule, the Phase 2 Rule on November 29,
2005 (70 FR 71612), and made several revisions to that rule on June 8,
2007 (72 FR 31727). The Phase 2 rule addresses SIP obligations for the
1997 ozone standard, including the SIP elements associated with
reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonably available
control measures (RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), modeling
and attainment demonstrations, new source review, vehicle inspection
and maintenance (I/M) programs, and contingency measures for failure to
meet RFP and the attainment date.

D. The DFW Nonattainment Area and Its Current Nonattainment
Classification Under the 1997 Ozone Standard

    On April 30, 2004, the EPA designated nine counties as the DFW
nonattainment area for the 1997 ozone standard (i.e., Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant
counties) and this 9-county area was classified under subpart 2 of the
Act, as ``Moderate'' (69 FR 23858).\4\ For areas subject to subpart 2
of the Act, the maximum period to achieve attainment runs from the
effective date of designations and classifications for the 1997 ozone
standard and corresponds to the same length of time provided in Table 1
of Section 181(a) of the Act: Marginal--3 years; Moderate--6 years;
Serious--9 years; Severe--15 years; and Extreme--20 years. 40 CFR
51.903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA promulgated a
revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm (``the 2008 ozone
standard''). On April 30, 2012, the EPA promulgated designations
under the 2008 ozone standard (77 FR 30088, May 21, 2012) and in
that action, the EPA designated 10 counties 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DFW nonattainment area was classified as Moderate based on a
design value at the time of designation (DV) of 0.10 ppm, with an
attainment date of June 15, 2010 (69 FR 23858). The DV of an area
characterizes the severity of the air quality and is represented by the
highest DV measured at any ozone monitor in the area. The calculation
for the DV is the three-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration measured at a monitor. In
response to the designation, the State of Texas submitted an attainment
plan designed to meet the 1997 ozone standard and we conditionally
approved this plan on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 1903).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the next paragraph, we describe how the DFW area failed
to attain the 1997 ozone standard by its Moderate attainment date
and was reclassified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area.
Following reclassification to Serious, the State submitted a revised
attainment plan for the DFW area. We are addressing the State's
revised Moderate area SIP that addressed the conditional approval
and the State's Serious area SIP in separate rulemaking actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 181(b)(2) of the Act prescribes the process for making a
determination of whether an ozone nonattainment area met the standard
by its attainment date. Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires that
the EPA determine, based on the area's ozone design value (as of the
attainment date), whether or not the area attained the ozone standard
by that date. For Marginal, Moderate, and Serious areas, if the EPA
finds that the nonattainment area has failed to attain the ozone
standard by the applicable attainment date, the area must be
reclassified by operation of law to the higher of (1) the next higher
classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to
the area's design value as determined at the time of the required
Federal Register notice. Section 181(b)(2)(B) requires the EPA to
publish in the Federal Register a notice identifying any area that has
failed to attain by its attainment date and, if applicable, the
resulting reclassification. The DFW area failed to attain the 1997
ozone standard by its Moderate attainment date of June 15, 2010, and
was consequently reclassified as a Serious ozone nonattainment area
with an attainment date of no later than June 15, 2013 (75 FR 79302,
December 20, 2010).

II. EPA's Evaluation of the DFW Area's 1997 8-Hour Ozone Data

    The EPA is proposing to determine the DFW area did not attain the
1997 ozone standard by its attainment deadline of June 15, 2013 based
on quality-assured, quality-controlled ambient air monitoring data for
the years 2010-2012 that show the area was violating the 1997 ozone
standard. These data from sites in the DFW area have been certified by
the TCEQ and are presented in Table 1. As noted earlier in this action,
the highest DV at any regulatory monitor in the area is considered the
DV for the area (40 CFR 58.1). The Keller monitoring site recorded the
highest 2010-2012 design value--0.087 ppm--which is also the design
value for the area. Thus, pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Act, the
EPA is proposing to determine that the DFW nonattainment area did not
attain the 1997 ozone standard by the June 15, 2013, deadline for
Serious nonattainment areas.

       Table 1--DFW Area Fourth Highest 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and Design Values (ppm),\6\ 2010-2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      4th Highest daily max
                       Site name and No.                        ---------------------------------  Design value
                                                                    2010       2011       2012      (2010-2012)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Worth Northwest, 48-439-1002..............................  \7\ 0.081      0.082      0.077           0.080
Keller, 48-439-2003............................................      0.085      0.097      0.079           0.087
Frisco, 48-085-0005............................................      0.074      0.091      0.084           0.083
Midlothian OFW, 48-139-0016....................................      0.072      0.080      0.078           0.076
Denton Airport South, 48-121-0034..............................      0.074      0.095      0.081           0.083
Arlington Municipal Airport, 48-439-3011.......................      0.079      0.080      0.092           0.083
Dallas North No. 2, 48-113-0075................................      0.071      0.088      0.086           0.081
Rockwall Heath, 48-397-0001....................................      0.073      0.080      0.080           0.077
Grapevine Fairway, 48-439-3009.................................      0.083      0.091      0.086           0.086
Kaufman, 48-257-0005...........................................      0.064      0.074      0.073           0.070
Eagle Mountain Lake, 48-439-0075...............................      0.080      0.080      0.087           0.082
Parker County, 48-367-0081.....................................      0.070      0.088      0.076           0.078
Cleburne Airport, 48-251-0003..................................      0.078      0.079      0.082           0.079
Dallas Hinton St., 48-113-0069.................................      0.075      0.084      0.087           0.082
Dallas Executive Airport, 48-113-0087..........................      0.078      0.082      0.085           0.081
Pilot Point, 48-121-1032.......................................      0.078      0.091      0.078           0.082
Italy, 48-139-1044.............................................      0.063      0.075      0.071           0.069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under  section 181(a)(5) of the Act and 40 CFR 51.907, an area can
qualify for up to 2 one-year extensions of its attainment date if it
meets the conditions set forth in 40 CFR 51.907. For the 1997 ozone
standard, if an area's fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
value in the attainment year is 0.084 ppm or less (40 CFR 51.907), the
area is eligible for the first one-year extension to the attainment
date. The attainment year is the year immediately preceding the
attainment date (40 CFR 51.900(g)), thus the DFW area's attainment year
is 2012. In 2012, the area's fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour was
0.092 ppm at the Arlington monitor site. Therefore, the DFW area does
not qualify for a 1-year extension of its Serious area attainment
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Design value calculations for the 1997 ozone standard are
based on a rolling three-year average of the annual 4th highest
values (40 CFR part 50, Appendix I).
    \7\ As happens on occasion, this particular value varies from
that reported on the State Web site (see www.tceq.texas.gov/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/8hr_attainment.pl). For comparison and
confirmation, the AQS report for these monitors, for 2010 through
2013, is provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the Act provides that, should the EPA find
that an area fails to attain by the applicable date, the area shall be
reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: The next higher
classification for the area; or the classification applicable to the
area's ozone design value at the time of the reclassification. The
classification that would be applicable to the DFW area's ozone DV at
the time of today's notice is ``Marginal'' because the area's
calculated DV, based on quality-assured ozone monitoring data from
2011-2013, is 0.087 ppm.\8\ By contrast, the next higher classification
for the DFW area is ``Severe.'' Because ``Severe'' is a higher
nonattainment classification than ``Marginal'' under the statutory
scheme in the Act, upon the effective date of the final rulemaking
determining that the DFW has failed to attain the 1997 ozone standard
by the applicable attainment date of June 15, 2013, the DFW area will
be reclassified by operation of law as ``Severe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As indicated earlier in this rulemaking, the DV for the
2010-2012 ozone season is 0.087 ppm, too. The DFW area fourth
highest 8-hour ozone concentrations and DVs for 2011-2013 are
provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Consequences of Reclassification

A. Effect of Reclassification on Stationary Air Pollution Sources

    Upon reclassification, stationary air pollution sources in the DFW
ozone nonattainment area will be subject to Severe ozone nonattainment
area New Source Review (NSR) and Title V permit requirements. The
source applicability threshold for major sources and major source
modification emissions is lowered to those that emit or have the
potential to emit at least 25 tons per year (tpy) of VOC and
NOX. For new and modified major stationary sources subject
to review under Texas Administrative Code Title 30, Chapter 116,
Section 116.150 (30 TAC 116.150) in the EPA approved SIP, VOC and
NOX emissions increases from the proposed construction of
new or modified major stationary sources must be offset by emissions
reductions meeting a minimum offset ratio of 1.30 to 1. See 30 TAC 116
and 40 CFR 52.2270(c).

B. Use of Reformulated Gasoline

    Effective one year after the reclassification of the DFW area as a
Severe ozone nonattainment area, the requirement at section
211(k)(10)(D) of the Act would expand the prohibition of the sale of
conventional gasoline and require the use of reformulated gasoline in
Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, and Rockwall counties. Currently, the
prohibition applying to the sale of conventional gasoline in the DFW
area is limited to Collin, Dallas, Denton and Tarrant counties (see 57
FR 46316, October 8, 1992).

C. Proposed Date for Submitting a Revised SIP for the DFW Area

    Pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to
determine that the DFW area did not attain the 1997 ozone standard by
the attainment deadline for Serious ozone nonattainment areas. If the
EPA takes final action on this determination as proposed, the DFW area
will be reclassified by operation of law from Serious to Severe
nonattainment. Severe areas are required to attain the standard ``as
expeditiously as practicable'' but no later than 15 years after
designation, or June 15, 2019.\9\ The ``as expeditiously as

practicable'' attainment date will be determined as part of the action
on the required SIP submittal demonstrating attainment of the 1997
ozone standard. The EPA is proposing a schedule by which Texas will
submit the SIP revisions necessary pursuant to reclassification to
Severe nonattainment of the 1997 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As noted earlier, the attainment date is 15 years from the
effective date of designations and classifications for the 1997
ozone standard, which places it in the middle of the ozone
monitoring season. The DFW ozone season data collected through June
15 would not meet the data completeness requirement and thus could
not be used to determine attainment. To achieve the data
completeness requirement, we use data collected from the prior
complete ozone seasons. In other words, the area must attain by the
year immediately preceding the attainment date (40 CFR 51.900(g)),
which in this instance is 2018. The attainment date for the DFW
nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone standard is December 31,
2018 (77 FR 30088).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an area is reclassified, the EPA has the authority under
section 182(i) of the Act to adjust the Act's submittal deadlines for
any new SIP revisions that are required as a result of the
reclassification. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.908(d), for each nonattainment
area, the State must provide for implementation of all control measures
needed for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later than
the beginning of the attainment year ozone season. The attainment year
ozone season is the ozone season immediately preceding a nonattainment
area's attainment date. For an area with an attainment date of June 15,
2019, which is the date that would apply for the DFW area if bumped up
to Severe, the attainment year ozone season is 2018 (40 CFR 51.900(g)).
The ozone season is the ozone monitoring season as defined in 40 CFR
part 58, Appendix D, section 4.1, Table D-3 (71 FR 61236, October 17,
2006). For the DFW area, March 1st is the beginning of the ozone
monitoring season. We propose that Texas submit the required SIP
revisions, including the attainment demonstration, RFP plan, and other
applicable Severe area requirements to the EPA as expeditiously as
practicable, but not later than one year after the effective date of
the final rulemaking for this reclassification. In addition, all
applicable controls shall be implemented as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than March 1, 2018, which is the beginning of
the attainment year ozone season.

D. Severe Area Plan Requirements

    Pursuant to section 182(d) of the Act and 40 CFR 51 subpart X, the
revised SIP for the DFW area must include all the CAA requirements for
Serious ozone nonattainment area plans such as: (1) Enhanced ambient
monitoring (CAA 182(c)(1)); (2) an enhanced vehicle I/M program (CAA
182(c)(3)); and (3) a clean fuel vehicle program or an approved
substitute (CAA 182(c)(4)).\10\ The revised SIP for the DFW area must
also meet the Severe area requirements specified in CAA section 182(d),
including: (1) An attainment demonstration (CAA section 182(c)(2)(A)
and (d); 40 CFR 51.908); (2) provisions for RACT and RACM (CAA sections
172(c)(1); 182(b)(2) and (d); 40 CFR 51.912); (3) RFP reductions for
each three-year period until the attainment date (CAA section
182(c)(2)(B) and (d); 40 CFR 51.910); (4) contingency measures to be
implemented in the event of failure to meet RFP or attain the standard
(CAA 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9)); (5) transportation control measures to
offset emissions from growth in vehicle miles traveled or VMT (CAA
182(d)(1)(A)); (6) increased offsets for major sources (CAA section
182(d)(2) and 40 CFR 51.165); and (7) fees on major sources if the area
fails to attain the standard (CAA 182(d)(3) and 185).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The requirement for Stage II gasoline vapor recovery does
not apply because the EPA determined that onboard vapor recovery is
in widespread use in the motor vehicle fleet and waived the CAA
section 182(b)(3) requirement. See 77 FR 28772, May 16, 2012. On
March 17, 2014, the EPA approved revisions to the Texas SIP that
remove the requirement that gasoline dispensing facilities (GDFs)
install Stage II equipment and provide removal (decommissioning)
procedures that existing GDFs must complete by August 31, 2018 (79
FR 14611).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the DFW area is presently classified as Serious under the
1997 ozone standard, the state has adopted and EPA has approved into
the SIP provisions that meet several of these requirements. A list of
the requirements already in place and those yet to be adopted by the
State for the DFW area is provided in Table 2.

   Table 2--Requirements That Would Apply for the Proposed DFW Severe
             Nonattainment Area for the 1997 Ozone Standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Action needed or date approved
              Requirement                             by EPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severe Area Attainment Demonstration...  Must be submitted to EPA for
                                          approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
RFP Demonstration......................  Must be submitted to EPA for
                                          approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
Contingency provisions.................  Must be submitted to EPA for
                                          approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
Enhanced ambient monitoring............  Proposed for approval on May
                                          13, 2014 (79 FR 27257).
Enhanced vehicle I/M program...........  November 14, 2001 (66 FR
                                          57261).\11\
Clean-fuel vehicle programs............  Proposed for approval on May
                                          13, 2014 (79 FR 27257).
Transportation control measures to       Must be submitted to EPA for
 offset VMT.                              approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
RACM...................................  Must be submitted to EPA for
                                          approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
RACT...................................  Must be submitted to EPA for
                                          approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
Fees on major sources if the area fails  Must be submitted to EPA for
 to attain the 1997 ozone standard.       approval by date established
                                          in final reclassification
                                          rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The 2008 Ozone Standard and Its Effect on Reclassification of the
DFW Area

    In 2008, the EPA promulgated a more protective 8-hour ozone
standard of 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436) and EPA published a rule
designating areas for that standard on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088). On
June 6, 2013, the EPA published its proposed rule to implement the 2008
ozone standard (78 FR 34178). The rule also proposed revocation of the
1997 ozone standard for all purposes, and that upon revocation of that
standard, the EPA would not be obligated to reclassify areas to a
higher classification under the 1997 ozone NAAQS based upon a
determination that the areas failed to attain such NAAQS by the areas'
corresponding attainment date (78 FR 34178, 34236; proposed 40 CFR
51.1105(d)(2)(ii)). We anticipate final action on the proposed
implementation

rule this spring. If EPA has not yet taken final action to reclassify
the DFW area for the 1997 ozone standard before a final rulemaking
revoking the 1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes is effective, and that
rulemaking is finalized as proposed with respect to EPA's obligation
concerning reclassification of areas for the revoked standard, then EPA
will not finalize this proposed reclassification for DFW. However, the
DFW area will still be subject to appropriate ``anti-backsliding''
requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as established in any final rule
EPA may promulgate in connection with any revocation of the 1997
standard. Anti-backsliding provides protection against degradation of
air quality (e.g., the DFW area does not ``backslide'') and ensures the
area continues to make progress toward attainment of the new, more
stringent NAAQS. Anti-backsliding also ensures there is consistency
with the ozone NAAQS implementation framework outlined in subpart 2 of
Part D of the CAA (78 FR 34178, 34211).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This rulemaking expanded the enhanced I/M program to
include all nine of the DFW nonattainment counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 181(b)(2) of the Act, the EPA is proposing to
determine, based on certified, quality-assured monitoring data for
2010-2012 that the DFW area did not attain the 1997 ozone standard by
the applicable June 15, 2013 attainment deadline. If the EPA finalizes
this determination, upon the effective date of the final determination
the DFW 9-county nonattainment area will be reclassified by operation
of law as a Severe ozone nonattainment area under the 1997 ozone
standard. Pursuant to section 182(i) of the Act, the EPA is also
proposing the schedule for submittal of the SIP revisions required for
Severe areas once the DFW area is reclassified. The EPA is proposing
that Texas submit to the EPA the required SIP revisions for the Severe
attainment demonstration, RFP and for all other Severe area measures
required under sections 172, 182(c), 182(d) and 185 of the Act no later
than one year after the effective date of the final rulemaking for this
reclassification.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under section 181(b)(2) of the CAA, a determination of
nonattainment is a factual determination based upon air quality
considerations and the resulting reclassification must occur by
operation of law. A determination of nonattainment and the resulting
reclassification of a nonattainment area by operation of law under
section 181(b)(2) does not in and of itself create any new
requirements, but rather applies the requirements contained in the
Clean Air Act. For these reasons, this proposed 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, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
because it will not have a substantial direct effect 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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: February 9, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-03152 Filed 2-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 135 (Monday, July 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32691]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14897]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2534-003.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-07-11_Filing to implement
Offer of Settlement re NIPSCO deprec rates to be effective 10/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 7/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170711-5119.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1191-002.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Second Amendment to Extend Time for
Action to be effective 7/30/2010.
    Filed Date: 7/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170710-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1310-001.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: NYISO Response to Deficiency Letter
on Regional Cost Allocation Methodology to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 7/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170710-5335.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2072-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2017-07-10 Petition for Tariff
Waiver--CPM Designation Report to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 7/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170710-5399.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2073-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Service
Agreement No. 2536, Queue Nos. O66/V1-034 to Convert TWR to be
effective 6/2/2017.
    Filed Date: 7/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170710-5410.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES17-40-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: Application under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for authorization to issue short-term securities of MDU Resources
Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 7/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170710-5413.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/31/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 11, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-14897 Filed 7-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 136 (Tuesday, July 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42534-42535]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16960]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2013-0164]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collections of information: 1625-0049,
Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and
Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG) and 1625-0063, Marine Occupational Health
and Safety Standards for Benzene--46 CFR 197 subpart C. Our ICRs
describe the information we seek to collect from the public. Review and
comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate
with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before August
15, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2013-0164] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), ATTN: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, US Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., STOP 7101, Washington, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Smith, Office of Information
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents. Contact Ms. Barbara Hairston, Program Manager,
Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the

accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collections; (3) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the
Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collections on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. These comments will help OIRA
determine whether to approve the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2013-0164], and must be received by August 15,
2013. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2013-0164]; indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2013-0164'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2013-0164'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0049 and 1625-0063.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (78 FR 19502, April 1, 2013)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Waterfront Facilities Handling Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) and Liquefied Hazardous Gas (LHG).
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0049.
    Type Of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of waterfront facilities that
transfer LNG or LHG.
    Abstract: Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and other Liquefied Hazardous
Gases (LHG) present a risk to the public when handled at waterfront
facilities. These rules should either prevent accidental releases at
waterfront facilities or mitigate their results. They are necessary to
promote and verify compliance with safety standards.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 9,504
hours to 6,425 hours a year due to the change from 7 to 1 WSA's per
year. There is also an increase in response due to the change in the
number of respondents.
    2. Title: Marine Occupational Health and Safety Standards for
Benzene--46 CFR 197 Subpart C.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0063.
    Type Of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of vessels.
    Abstract: To protect marine workers from exposure to toxic Benzene
vapor, the Coast Guard implemented 46 CFR part 197 subpart C to reduce
the number of deaths. This information collection is vital to verifying
compliance. Respondents are owners and operators of vessels.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 59,766
hours to 38,165 hours a year, due to a correction in the method of
calculating burden.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: July 3, 2013.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2013-16960 Filed 7-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P