[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58962-58966]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23118]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0458; FRL-9730-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a state implementation plan revision
submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality to address
the moderate area PM10 (particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten
micrometers) planning requirements for the Nogales nonattainment area.
Consistent with this final action, EPA is approving the following plan
elements as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act: The Nogales
nonattainment area 2008 and 2011 emission inventories; the
demonstration that the Nogales nonattainment area is attaining the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM10, but for
international emissions sources in Nogales, Mexico; the demonstration
that reasonably available control measures sufficient to meet the
standard have been implemented in the nonattainment area; the
reasonable further progress demonstration; the demonstration that
implementation of measures beyond those needed for attainment meet the
contingency measure requirement; and, the motor vehicle emissions
budget for the purposes of determining the conformity of transportation
plans, programs, and projects with this PM10 plan.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 25, 2012.
    Docket: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0458 for
this action. The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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.,
confidential business information or CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, Air Planning Office,
AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-
3901, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
table of contents for ease of locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Proposed Action
II. Arizona's Submittal of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan
    A. Arizona's Submittal of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan and Clean
Air Act Procedural Requirements
    B. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
    C. Revisions to the 2008 and 2011 Emissions Inventories' Mobile
Source Emissions Estimates
III. Public Comments
IV. EPA's Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Proposed Action

    On June 27, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the proposed state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on May 29, 2012 to address the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for areas classified as
``moderate'' nonattainment for the PM10 national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS), in this case, Nogales, Arizona. ADEQ
submitted a plan for the Nogales nonattainment area (NA) entitled
Proposed State Implementation Plan Nogales PM10
Nonattainment Area, referred to as the ``Nogales 2012 Plan'' here and
in our proposal. See 77 FR 38400; (June 27, 2012). Specifically, under
CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA proposed to approve the following elements
of the Nogales 2012 Plan:
    (1) The 2008 base year and 2011 emissions inventories as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    (2) The demonstration of attainment but for international emissions
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 179B(a)(1);
    (3) The implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry within the Nogales NA prior to the CAA's
1994 attainment deadline as meeting the reasonably available control
measure/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT)
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C);
    (4) The implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the reasonable further progress
(RFP) demonstration requirement of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
179B(a)(2);
    (5) The implementation of post-1994 paving projects as meeting the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
179B(a)(2); and,
    (6) The 2011 attainment year motor vehicle emissions budget if
revised to include road construction PM10, because, as
revised, it is derived from the section 179B demonstration and meets
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
    To summarize our proposal, first, we described the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS and its application to the Nogales NA and

how this resulted in the designation and classification of the Nogales
NA as a moderate PM10 nonattainment area under the CAA.
Then, we described, in general terms, the CAA planning requirements for
moderate PM10 nonattainment areas, such as the Nogales NA,
and touched briefly upon the 1993 Nogales PM10 Plan, which
identified emissions sources from Nogales, Mexico as the principal
sources of PM10 affecting ambient concentrations in Nogales,
Arizona. See 77 FR 38401; (June 27, 2012).
    Second, we presented Arizona's Nogales 2012 Plan, submitted by ADEQ
on May 29, 2012, and described the ADEQ's concurrent request that EPA
``parallel process'' its review and proposed action on this plan. Then,
we provided a brief description of the location and geography of the
Nogales NA. The Nogales NA is located within Santa Cruz County in
southern Arizona, approximately 60 miles south of Tucson, and covers
76.1 square miles. The southernmost boundary of the Nogales NA and
Santa Cruz County is the United States (U.S.)/Mexico border. Adjacent
to the U.S./Mexico border, the city of Nogales, Arizona is the largest
city and population center in the Nogales NA. Directly across the U.S./
Mexico border from Nogales, Arizona is the much larger city of Nogales,
Mexico.\1\ See 77 FR 38401-38402; (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2010, Nogales, Arizona had 20,017 inhabitants (U.S.
Census Bureau 2010) and Nogales, Mexico had 212,533 inhabitants
(Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica, (INEGI)
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, we discussed in detail the CAA and statutory requirements
for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas as applied to the
Nogales NA, given the area's air quality is influenced by international
sources of PM10 emissions from Nogales, Mexico.\2\
Specifically, in lieu of a demonstration that the area would actually
attain the PM10 NAAQS, section 179B of the CAA allows
Arizona to submit a demonstration that the Nogales NA would have
attained the PM10 NAAQS but for international transport of
PM10 from Mexico. Under CAA section 179B, however, other SIP
requirements, such as RACM and contingency measures, among other
requirements, continue to apply to PM10 nonattainment areas
even if the area qualifies for relief from the attainment demonstration
requirement. See 77 FR 38402-38404; (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In particular, we described our preliminary interpretations
of the applicable statutory provisions as set forth in the following
guidance documents: The ``General Preamble to Title I of the Clean
Air Act'' at 57 FR 132498; (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070; (April
28, 1992); and ``The Addendum to the General Preamble'' at 59 FR
41998; (August 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary criterion we applied for determining attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS but for international emissions was 40 CFR part
50, appendix K. Under 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, a nonattainment area
meets the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS when the expected number of
days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150
micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) is equal to or less than
one. To demonstrate that the Nogales NA has met the PM10
standard ``but for'' emissions from Mexico, Arizona's analysis had to
show that no more than three exceedances over its specific three-year
analysis period, 2007-2009, based on data completeness and every day
sampling, would have occurred on the U.S. side of the border, setting
aside contributions from Mexican sources of PM10. See 77 FR
38404; (June 27, 2012).
    In the fourth section of our proposal, we reviewed the Nogales 2012
Plan and its constituent parts against the applicable CAA statutory and
regulatory requirements.
    Emissions Inventories. The 2008 base year and 2011 emissions
inventories were reviewed for compliance with the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(3). For the reasons set forth in the proposed rule, we
concluded that the inventories are comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventories of actual emissions from all sources in the nonattainment
area and therefore meet the requirements of section 172(c)(3). See 77
FR 38404-38405; (June 27, 2012).
    Section 179B or ``But For'' Demonstration. Arizona's demonstration
of attainment but for international emissions for the Nogales NA was
reviewed for compliance with section 179B(a)(1). To summarize briefly
Arizona's demonstration, Arizona reviewed local population growth data,
Nogales, Mexico and Nogales NA emissions inventories, the ambient
PM10 data, and local meteorological data, and through its
analyses, Arizona found that the Ambos Nogales area's meteorology and
topography influence the observed exceedances of PM10 NAAQS
and there is a definite south-to-north directional component to the
ambient air quality data underlying the exceedances of the
PM10 NAAQS. Finally, daily and hourly analyses of the most
recent three years of quality assured and State certified ambient
PM10 data from 2007-2009 and associated meteorological data
showed that no more than two, and likely none, of the 29 exceedances
would have occurred in the Nogales NA, but for PM10
emissions from Mexico. Based on these two exceedances, data
completeness, and every day sampling for the 2007-2009 timeframe, the
calculated maximum expected annual exceedance rate is 0.7 exceedances
per year. The standard used to demonstrate attainment of the
PM10 NAAQS, ``but for'' international emissions, is that the
expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ must be equal to or less than
one. Therefore, we proposed to determine that Arizona has met this
standard and to approve its section 179B analysis and demonstration of
attainment but for international emissions for the Nogales NA. See 77
FR 38405-38416; (June 27, 2012).
    RACM/RACT. The implementation of paving projects and capital
improvement projects at the Ports of Entry within the Nogales NA prior
to the CAA's 1994 attainment deadline were reviewed under the RACM/RACT
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C).
Based on that review, we concluded that the implementation of paving
projects and capital improvement projects at the Ports of Entry within
the Nogales NA prior to the 1994 attainment deadline met the RACM/RACT
requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C).
See 77 FR 38416-38417; (June 27, 2012).
    Reasonable Further Progress. The implementation of paving projects
and capital improvement projects at the Ports of Entry were reviewed
under the RFP demonstration requirement of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
179B(a)(2). Based on that review, we concluded that the implementation
of paving projects and capital improvement projects at the Ports of
Entry met the RFP demonstration requirement of CAA sections 172(c)(2)
and 179B(a)(2). See 77 FR 38417-38418; (June 27, 2012).
    Contingency Measures. The implementation of post-1994 paving
projects were reviewed under the contingency measure requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 179B(a)(2). Based on that review, we
concluded that the implementation of post-1994 paving projects met the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
179B(a)(2). See 77 FR 38417-38418; (June 27, 2012).
    Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget. Finally, the 2011 attainment year
motor vehicle emissions budget (MVEB) was reviewed against the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and of 40 CFR 93, subpart A. Based
on that review, we concluded that the MVEB, if it included road
construction dust when submitted in its final form, would meet the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and

of 40 CFR 93, subpart A. See 77 FR 38418-38419; (June 27, 2012).
    Within our proposal, we anticipated the necessity for ADEQ to
revise the MVEB to include road construction dust emissions; therefore,
we required a second public comment period before Arizona could provide
its final submittal containing the revised MVEB. The State's final
submittal and the revised MVEB are discussed further in the next
section.

II. Arizona's Submittal of the Final 2012 Nogales Plan

    We proposed approval of the Nogales 2012 Plan based on the public
draft version of the plan submitted to us by ADEQ as an enclosure to a
letter requesting EPA to ``parallel process'' the plan prior to its
submittal in final and adopted form as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
We indicated in our proposal that, while we could propose action, we
would not take final action on the Nogales 2012 Plan until the plan had
been fully adopted by ADEQ and submitted formally to EPA for approval
as part of the Arizona SIP.\3\ As discussed in more detail below, on
August 24, 2012, ADEQ adopted and submitted the Final 2012 State
Implementation Plan Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area, dated August 24,
2012, herein referred to as ``Final Nogales 2012 Plan''. This plan is
the subject of today's final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See footnote two of the proposed rule at 77 FR 38401; (June
27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Arizona's Submittal of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan and Clean Air Act
Procedural Requirements

    In our review of the Nogales 2012 Plan, dated May 29, 2012, and in
our proposal, we noted the need for Arizona to include road
construction dust within the plan's MVEB and notified ADEQ prior to the
close of its initial 30-day public comment period on the Nogales 2012
Plan.\4\ In addition, ADEQ identified the need to revise the MVEB to
include vehicle brake and tire wear emissions along with the previously
included vehicle exhaust and entrained road dust emissions. Thus, in
response to our comments and its own review of the MVEB, ADEQ revised
the MVEB in the Nogales 2012 Plan to include road construction dust and
vehicle brake and tire wear emissions, and on July 24, 2012 provided
for a 30-day public review of this revised MVEB. On August 24, 2012,
ADEQ then adopted and submitted the Final Nogales 2012 Plan on which we
are taking final action today. The Final Nogales 2012 Plan includes the
revised MVEB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See correspondence from Lisa Hanf, EPA to Eric Massey, ADEQ,
dated June 21, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, EPA proposes
rulemaking action on a proposed SIP revision concurrently with the
State's public review process. If the State's proposed SIP revision is
changed, EPA will evaluate that subsequent change and may publish
another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is
made, EPA will propose a final rulemaking on the SIP revision after
responding to any submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA
will occur only after the final SIP revision has been fully adopted by
ADEQ and submitted formally to EPA for approval as part of the Arizona
SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
    Because we anticipated the need to include road construction dust
within the MVEB, noted this need in our proposal, and provided a 30-day
public comment period concerning this revision to include road
construction dust, we are not re-proposing approval of the revised MVEB
included in the Final Nogales 2012 Plan. Prior to its August 24, 2012
submittal of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan, the State provided a 30-day
public review and comment period of the revised MVEB including road
construction dust and brake and tire wear emissions. In sum, these
revisions to the Nogales PM10 MVEB have been presented to
the public for as many as 60 days and neither we nor ADEQ have received
public comment. As submitted by Arizona in the Final Nogales 2012 Plan,
the MVEB revisions are discussed below.

B. Revisions to the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget

    We proposed to approve the MVEB for the Nogales NA contingent upon
ADEQ's inclusion of road construction PM10 in the MVEB. As
we noted in the proposed rule, road construction PM10 should
be included in the MVEB because, as the second largest source of
PM10 emissions generated within the Nogales NA, road
construction PM10 is a significant contributor to the
overall Nogales NA PM10 inventory.\5\ See 40 CFR 93.122(e).
While road construction dust was included within the 2008 and 2011
emissions inventories provided by ADEQ, these emissions were not
included in the MVEB for the Nogales 2012 Plan as submitted by ADEQ on
May 29, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 77 FR 38419 (June 27, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, ADEQ revised the MVEB in the Final Nogales 2012
Plan to include road construction dust (see Table 1 below) and to
include brake and tire wear emissions (see discussion in next section
of this document).

      Table 1--2011 Nogales NA PM10 Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
                                 [tons]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Source category                           PM10
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpaved Road Dust.......................................           864.9
Road Construction Dust..................................           267.0
Paved Road Dust.........................................           121.4
On-road Gasoline and Diesel Vehicle Emissions, including            21.0
 Brake, Tire Wear, and Vehicle Exhaust..................
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................         1,274.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Table 7.1 of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan and ``2008 and 2011
  p.m.10 Emissions Inventories for the Nogales NA, Santa Cruz County,
  Arizona'' in Appendix B of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan.

    Because Arizona included road construction dust as we recommended
in our proposed approval of the Nogales 2012 Plan, we are taking final
action to approve the Nogales NA PM10 MVEB at 1,274.3 tons.
For our broader discussion of the Nogales 2012 Plan and how the MVEB
meets statutory requirements, please see the proposed rule at 77 FR
38418--38419.

C. Revisions to the 2008 and 2011 Emissions Inventories' Mobile Source
Emissions Estimates

    In reviewing the mobile source emissions estimates within the 2008
and 2011 emissions inventories for the MVEB in the Final Nogales 2012
Plan, ADEQ discovered that vehicle brake and tire wear emissions were
not included in the 2008 and 2011 emissions inventories or the
corresponding MVEB presented in the Nogales 2012 Plan, submitted May
29, 2012.\6\ As a result, the 2008 and 2011 emissions inventories did
not include the seven tons per year of PM10 emissions
attributed to vehicle brake and tire wear. ADEQ revised the Nogales NA
emissions inventories and MVEB accordingly for the Final Nogales 2012
Plan and thereby increased the Nogales NA PM10 inventory
total from 1,524 to 1,531 tons in 2008 and from 1,521 to 1,528 tons in
2011, an increase of less than 0.5 percent across the Nogales NA
emissions inventories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Appendices 1 and 2 containing the MOVES model output
files within Nogales NA 2008 and 2011 Emissions Inventories within
Appendix B of the Nogales 2012 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While including brake and tire wear emissions is important for
accuracy and compiling the MVEB, the material effect on any subsequent
analyses using emissions inventory data in the Final

Nogales 2012 Plan is inconsequential. For example, in 2008, adding
brake and tire wear emissions to the Nogales NA emissions inventory
increases its largest share of the total Ambos Nogales regional
emissions inventory by less than 0.1 percent, from 35.97 to 36.07
percent.\7\ Therefore, it remains accurate for the purposes of analysis
to assign to the Nogales NA a maximum of 36 percent of total Ambos
Nogales regional PM10 emissions; consequently, no revisions
are required for the section 179B demonstration and supporting analyses
presented within the Final Nogales 2012 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The previous Nogales NA 2008 emissions inventory of 1,524
tons divided by 4,237 tons, representing total Ambos Nogales
regional PM10 emissions, provides the 35.97 percent
share. The revised Nogales NA 2008 emissions inventory of 1,531 tons
divided by 4,244 tons, representing total Ambos Nogales regional
PM10 emissions, provides the 36.07 percent share. The
2008 Nogales, Mexico share remains constant at 2,713 tons as part of
estimating the Ambo Nogales regional total. See Appendix A of the
Final Nogales 2012 Plan for the detailed review and comparison of
Nogales NA and Nogales, Mexico emissions inventories from which
these figures are taken.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By revising the Nogales NA emissions inventories for 2008 and 2011
and revising the MVEB resulting from the 2011 emissions inventory, ADEQ
has corrected the oversight of not including the brake and tire wear
emissions in the previously presented emissions inventories. The MVEB
provided in Arizona's Final Nogales 2012 Plan submittal accurately
includes all on-road sources of PM10 as estimated within the
2011 Nogales NA emissions inventory. Also, the revised 2008 and 2011
emissions inventories for the Nogales NA within the Final Nogales 2012
Plan provide a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of actual
emissions from all sources within the nonattainment area.

III. Public Comments

    EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. During
this period, we received no comments on our proposal. Furthermore,
Arizona received no comments during its 30-day comment period
presenting the revised MVEB for public review, prior to its submittal
of the Final Nogales 2012 Plan.

IV. EPA's Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k), and for the reasons set forth in our June
27, 2012 proposed rule and summarized herein, EPA is approving the
Final 2012 State Implementation Plan Nogales PM10 Nonattainment Area
(``Final Nogales 2012 Plan''), submitted by ADEQ on August 24, 2012,
for the Nogales, Arizona ``moderate'' PM10 nonattainment
area. Specifically, EPA is approving the following elements of the
Final Nogales 2012 Plan:
    (1) The 2008 base year and 2011 emissions inventories as meeting
the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
    (2) The demonstration of attainment but for international emissions
as meeting the requirements of CAA section 179B(a)(1);
    (3) The implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry within the Nogales NA prior to the CAA's
1994 attainment deadline as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(1), 179B(a)(2), and 189(c)(1)(C);
    (4) The implementation of paving projects and capital improvement
projects at the Ports of Entry to meet the RFP demonstration
requirement of CAA sections 172(c)(2) and 179B(a)(2);
    (5) The implementation of post-1994 paving projects as meeting the
contingency measure requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
179B(a)(2); and,
    (6) The 2011 attainment year motor vehicle emissions budget because
it is derived from the section 179B demonstration and meets the
requirements of CAA section 176(c) and of 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
    Even with our approval of Arizona's demonstration that the Nogales
NA is attaining the PM10 NAAQS but for international
transport from Mexico, this final action approving the Final Nogales
2012 Plan does not constitute a redesignation to attainment because we
have not determined that the area has met the CAA requirements for
redesignation under section 107(d)(3)(E). The classification and
designation status in 40 CFR part 81 remains moderate nonattainment for
the Nogales NA until such time as EPA determines that Arizona has met
the CAA requirements for redesignating the Nogales NA to attainment for
the PM10 NAAQS.

V. 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. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided those choices meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves a state plan as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866, (58 FR 51735; (October 4, 1993));
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132, (64 FR 43255; (August 10, 1999));
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045, (62 FR
19885; (April 23, 1997));
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211, (66 FR 28355; (May 22, 2001));
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and,
     Does not provide 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, this action does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175, (65 FR 67249; (November 9, 2000)), because
the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the
state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs
on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until
60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 24, 2012.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(150) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (150) The following plan was submitted on August 24, 2012, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.
    (1) ``Final 2012 State Implementation Plan Nogales PM10
Nonattainment Area,'' dated August 24, 2012, including Appendices A-K,
adopted on August 24, 2012.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-23118 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70899-70902]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8205]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of   Current effective  map   Date certain  Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance  no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available  in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Region III

Virginia:
    Suffolk, City of,                 510156  January 22, 1975,   Nov. 16, 2011.........  Nov. 16, 2011.
     Independent City.                         Emerg; November
                                               16, 1990, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
           Region V

Illinois:
    Central City, Village of,         170452  September 5, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Marion County.                            Emerg; November
                                               2, 1983, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Centralia, City of, Marion        170453  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               18, 1984, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Salem, City of, Marion            170454  September 9, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 1,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Indiana:
    Culver, Town of, Marshall         180384  August 15, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 2,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Marshall County,                  180443  June 14, 1979,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; January 5,
                                               1989, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Michigan:
    Alpena, City of, Alpena           260010  August 28, 1973,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; November
                                               19, 1982, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Minnesota:
    Becker, City of, Sherburne        270710  N/A, Emerg; June    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   12, 2000, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Big Lake, City of,                270663  February 17, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Sherburne County.                         Emerg; December
                                               26, 1978, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Elk River, City of,               270436  February 19, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Sherburne County.                         Emerg; May 2,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Princeton, City of,               270292  July 2, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Sherburne County.                         Emerg; June 15,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Sherburne County,                 270435  May 16, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 19,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Zimmerman, City of,               270756  N/A, Emerg; May 9,  ......do..............   Do.
     Sherburne County.                         2000, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Wisconsin:
    Bay City, Village of,             555543  July 31, 1970,      ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; June 11,
                                               1971, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Ellsworth, Village of,            550325  August 28, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; May 4,
                                               1989, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Elmwood, Village of,              550326  April 29, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; March 5,
                                               1990, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Maiden Rock, Village of,          550327  July 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; September
                                               30, 1988, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Pierce County,                    555571  December 31, 1970,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; July 14,
                                               1972, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Plum City, Village of,            550328  May 12, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; January 3,
                                               1990, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Prescott, City of, Pierce         555574  October 23, 1970,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 9,
                                               1971, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    River Falls, City of,             550330  March 30, 1972,     ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; December
                                               15, 1982, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Spring Valley, Village of,        550331  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Pierce County.                            Emerg; March 15,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
           Region VI

New Mexico:
    Ruidoso, Village of,              350033  July 26, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Lincoln County.                           Emerg; March 2,
                                               1983, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Texas:

    Dublin, City of, Erath            480219  September 10,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   1975, Emerg;
                                               August 8, 1978,
                                               Reg; November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Erath County,                     480218  March 2, 2000,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; April 1,
                                               2004, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Stephenville, City of,            480220  March 11, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Erath County.                             Emerg; July 5,
                                               1977, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
          Region VII

Iowa:
    Albion, City of, Marshall         190542  March 30, 2009,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Ferguson, City of,                190457  July 13, 2010,      ......do..............   Do.
     Marshall County.                          Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Le Grand, City of,                190606  December 5, 1977,   ......do..............   Do.
     Marshall County.                          Emerg; September
                                               1, 1987, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Marshall County,                  190890  September 19,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     1997, Emerg; June
                                               30, 2003, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Marshalltown, City of,            190200  May 2, 1975,        ......do..............   Do.
     Marshall County.                          Emerg; April 17,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Nebraska:
    Indianola, City of, Red           310382  October 20, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     Willow County.                            Emerg; November
                                               16, 1990, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Red Willow County,                310469  June 18, 1984,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; May 1,
                                               1988, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
          Region VIII

Colorado:
    Breckenridge, Town of,            080172  July 25, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Summit County.                            Emerg; June 4,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Frisco, Town of, Summit           080245  December 2, 1976,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 15,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Silverthorne, Town of,            080201  July 16, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Summit County.                            Emerg; May 1,
                                               1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Summit County,                    080290  November 26, 1976,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; December
                                               16, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
South Dakota:
    Minnehaha County,                 460057  November 11, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; September
                                               5, 1979, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Sioux Falls, City of,             460060  April 12, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Minnehaha County.                         Emerg; January
                                               17, 1979, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
Wyoming:
    Afton, Town of, Lincoln           560068  June 18, 1982,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               19, 1986, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Cokeville, Town of,               560033  November 21, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Lincoln County.                           Emerg; February
                                               19, 1987, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Diamondville, Town of,            560034  April 8, 1977,      ......do..............   Do.
     Lincoln County.                           Emerg; September
                                               29, 1978, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Kemmerer, Town of, Lincoln        560035  August 15, 1978,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 15,
                                               1978, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Lincoln County,                   560032  June 23, 1978,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; February
                                               15, 1980, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
    Opal, Town of, Lincoln            560098  May 9, 1997,        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; May 9,
                                               1997, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
           Region IX

Nevada:
    Ely, City of, White Pine          320023  July 19, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; June 15,
                                               1984, Reg;
                                               November 16,
                                               2011, Susp
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*......do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

David L. Miller,
Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-29604 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17227-17228]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)
has requested an exemption for one commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
driver from the Federal requirement to hold a commercial driver's
license (CDL) issued by one of the States. Daimler requests that the

exemption cover a project engineer who will test drive CMVs for Daimler
within the United States. This driver holds a valid German CDL and
wants to test-drive Daimler vehicles on U.S. roads to better understand
product requirements for these systems in ``real world'' environments,
and verify results. Daimler believes the requirements for a German CDL
ensure that the same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this
driver had a U.S. State-issued CDL.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2012-0032 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov at any time and in the box
labeled ``SEARCH for'' enter FMCSA-2012-0032 and click on the tab
labeled ``SEARCH.''
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our 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 notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can get electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
    In the May 12, 2012, Federal Register (77 FR 31422) FMCSA granted
Daimler a similar exemption for two of its test drivers. Each held a
valid German CDL but lacked the U.S. residency necessary to obtain a
CDL. FMCSA concluded that the process for obtaining a German CDL is
comparable to or as effective as the U.S. CDL requirements and ensures
that these drivers will likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be obtained in the absence of the
exemption.

Request for Exemption

    Daimler has applied for an exemption for one of its engineers from
49 CFR 383.23, which prescribes licensing requirements for drivers
operating CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. This driver, Sven
Ennerst, is unable to obtain a CDL in any of the U.S. States. A copy of
the application is in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0032.
    The exemption would allow Mr. Ennerst to operate CMVs in interstate
or intrastate commerce to support Daimler field tests designed to meet
future vehicle safety and environmental regulatory requirements and to
promote the development of technology advancements in vehicle safety
systems and emissions reductions. According to Daimler, Mr. Ennerst
will typically drive for no more than 6 hours per day for 2 consecutive
days, and that 10 percent of the test driving will be on two-lane state
highways, while 90 percent will be on interstate highways. The driving
will consist of no more than 200 miles per day, for a total of 400
miles during a two-day period on a quarterly basis. He will in all
cases be accompanied by a holder of a U.S. CDL who is familiar with the
routes to be traveled.
    Daimler requests that the exemption cover a two-year period. Mr.
Ennerst holds a valid German CDL, and as explained by Daimler in its
exemption request, the requirements for that license ensure that the
same level of safety is met or exceeded as if this driver had a U.S.
CDL.
    FMCSA has determined that the process for obtaining a German-issued
CDL is comparable to, or as effective as the Federal requirements of 49
CFR Part 383, and adequately assesses a driver's ability to operate
CMVs in the United States.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) and 31136(e), FMCSA
requests public comment on Daimler's application for an exemption from
the CDL requirements of 49 CFR 383.23. The Agency will consider all
comments received by close of business on April 28, 2014. Comments will
be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will consider to the
extent practicable comments received in the public docket after the
closing date of the comment period.

    Issued on: March 14, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-06842 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P