Federal Register Vol. 80, No.123,

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule

In November 2013, pursuant to sections 1098 and 1100A of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act), the Bureau issued the Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (TILA-RESPA Final Rule), combining certain disclosures that consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a mortgage loan.1 On October 10, 2014, the Bureau proposed the Amendments to the 2013 Integrated Mortgage Disclosures Rule Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (Regulation X) and the Truth In Lending Act (Regulation Z) and the 2013 Loan Originator Rule Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) (TILA-RESPA Amendments),2 which was finalized on January 18, 2015.3 The TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments had effective dates of August 1, 2015. Because of an administrative error on the Bureau's part in complying with the CRA with respect to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot take effect until at the earliest August 15, 2015 (CRA Effective Date). This proposed rule seeks comment on whether the Bureau should delay the effective date of both the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments to October 3, 2015. The Bureau also proposes certain technical amendments to the Official Interpretations to Regulation Z to reflect the proposed new effective date.

Dodd-Frank Act sections 1032(f), 1098, and 1100A mandated that the Bureau establish a single disclosure scheme for use by lenders or creditors in complying with the disclosure requirements of both the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Section 1098(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended RESPA section 4(a) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions, including “the disclosure requirements of this section and section 5, in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [TILA]. . . .” 4 Similarly, section 1100A(5) of the Dodd-Frank Act amended TILA section 105(b) to require that the Bureau publish a single, integrated disclosure for mortgage loan transactions, including “the disclosure requirements of this title in conjunction with the disclosure requirements of [RESPA].. . .” 5 The Bureau issued proposed integrated disclosure forms and rules for public comment on July 9, 2012, in the 2012 TILA-RESPA Proposal, and issued the TILA-RESPA Final Rule on November 20, 2013.6

Upon issuing the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the Bureau initiated robust efforts to support industry implementation.7 Information regarding the Bureau's TILA-RESPA implementation initiative and available resources can be found on the Bureau's regulatory implementation Web site at www.consumerfinance.gov/regulatory-implementation/tila-respa.

As published, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments both had effective dates of August 1, 2015. Section 801 of the CRA precludes a rule from taking effect until the agency promulgating the rule submits a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). “Major rules,” as defined under the CRA (which includes the TILA-RESPA Final Rule), have several additional procedural requirements, including that they cannot take effect until 60 days after (1) publication in the Federal Register or (2) receipt by Congress, whichever is later. Although the TILA-RESPA Final Rule was published on December 31, 2013, and received widespread public and Congressional attention, the Bureau recently discovered that it inadvertently had not submitted the rule report to Congress as required. Immediately upon discovering its error, the Bureau submitted the rule report to both Houses of Congress and the GAO on June 16, 2015. Under the CRA, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot take effect until, at the earliest, August 15, 2015, two weeks after the currently-scheduled effective date.

The Bureau continues to believe that implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule will provide significant benefits to consumers and that, therefore, its earliest practically feasible implementation remains essential to aid consumer understanding of mortgage loan transactions. The Bureau recognizes, as it always has, that the TILA-RESPA Final Rule poses perhaps unique implementation challenges for industry, requiring major operational changes and close coordination among many different parties. At the same time, the Bureau further continues to believe that the nearly 21-month implementation period, coupled with the Bureau's significant regulatory implementation support efforts, afforded all participants a reasonable opportunity to come into compliance by the August 1 date. The Bureau understands that industry has dedicated significant resources to implementation readiness and appreciates that many organizations are well prepared to meet the original August 1 effective date.

Nonetheless, as explained above, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot take effect until the CRA Effective Date. Given that some delay in the effective date is now required, the Bureau believes that a brief additional delay may benefit both consumers and industry more than would allowing the new rules to take effect on the CRA Effective Date. The Bureau recognizes that a mid-month effective date may create additional challenges and also recognizes that adjusting operational systems from a target readiness date of August 1 to a target readiness date of August 15 is likely to pose implementation challenges for many organizations. Moreover, in recent weeks, the Bureau has learned that delays in the delivery of system updates have left creditors and others with limited time to fully test all of their systems and system components to ensure that each system works with the others in an effective manner. These delays pose risks to the smooth implementation of the new forms mandated under the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure, particularly given the potential challenges for institutions of stopping and restarting their progress toward implementation readiness.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Bureau is proposing a brief delay to the CRA Effective Date and the effective date for the TILA-RESPA Amendments to October 3, 2015. The Bureau believes that scheduling the effective date on a Saturday may allow for smoother implementation by affording industry time over the weekend to launch new systems configurations and to test systems. A Saturday launch is also consistent with existing industry plans tied to the Saturday August 1 effective date. The Bureau believes that a longer delay in implementation would impose unnecessary costs on both those segments of industry that have worked hardest to implement on time and on consumers and would be inconsistent with the underlying intent to aid consumer understanding of mortgage loan transactions.

The Bureau solicits comment on all aspects of this proposal. In particular, the Bureau asks commenters to provide specific detail and any available data regarding current and planned practices, as well as relevant knowledge and specific facts about any benefits, costs, or other impacts on both industry and consumers of this proposal. Specifically, the Bureau solicits comment regarding the proposed extension of the effective date to October 3, 2015, as well as alternative dates for extension, including the prospect of allowing the new rules to take effect on the CRA Effective Date.

The Bureau is proposing to exercise its rulemaking authority pursuant to its TILA section 105(a), RESPA section 19(a), and Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1) to delay the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments.

The legal authority for the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments are described in detail in the Legal Authority parts of the TILA-RESPA Final-Rule and Amendments, respectively. As amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, TILA section 105(a), 15 U.S.C. 1604(a), directs the Bureau to prescribe regulations to carry out the purposes of TILA and provides that such regulations may contain additional requirements, classifications, differentiations, or other provisions, and may provide for such adjustments and exceptions for all or any class of transactions, that the Bureau judges are necessary or proper to effectuate the purposes of TILA, to prevent circumvention or evasion thereof, or to facilitate compliance. Section 19(a) of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. 2617(a), authorizes the Bureau to prescribe such rules and regulations and to make such interpretations and grant such reasonable exemptions for classes of transactions as may be necessary to achieve the purposes of RESPA. Additionally, under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b)(1), the Bureau has general authority to prescribe rules “as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasions thereof.” 15 U.S.C. 5512(b)(1). TILA and RESPA are Federal consumer financial laws. Accordingly, in proposing this rule, the Bureau is exercising its authority under Dodd-Frank Act section 1022(b) to prescribe rules under TILA, RESPA, and title X of the Dodd-Frank Act that carry out the purposes and objectives and prevent evasion of those laws. Section 1022(b)(2) of the Dodd-Frank Act prescribes certain standards for rulemaking that the Bureau must follow in exercising its authority under section 1022(b)(1). 12 U.S.C. 5512(b)(2).

Comment 1(d)(5)-1 provides clarity regarding the application of the effective date to transactions covered by the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments. The Bureau is proposing conforming amendments to comment 1(d)(5)-1 to reflect the proposed change in effective date to October 3, 2015.

Comment 19(g)(2)-3 refers to the general restriction on changing the settlement cost booklet's title under § 1026.19(g)(2)(iv) and comment 19(g)(1)-1 and explains that, until the Bureau issues a version of the special information booklet relating to the Loan Estimate and Closing Disclosure under §§ 1026.37 and 1026.38, for applications that are received on or after August 1, 2015, a creditor may change the title appearing on the cover of the version of the special information booklet in use before August 1, 2015, provided the words “settlement costs” are used in the title. The Bureau is proposing conforming amendments to comment 19(g)(2)-3 to reflect the proposed change in effective date to October 3, 2015.

In addition to the amendments to the Official Interpretations discussed above, the Bureau is proposing one amendment to an amendatory instruction that relates to FR Doc. 2014-25503, published on November 3, 2014. Specifically, the Bureau proposes to amend the instruction, which is drafted so the interpretation would take effect on August 1, 2015, to coordinate with the original effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule. The subject of the amendatory instruction, Paragraph 43(e)(3)(iv)-2, Relationship to RESPA tolerance cure, will replace an existing clarification of the relationship between tolerance cures and Regulation Z points and fees cures. The proposed amendment would preserve this coordination by having the interpretation take effect on October 3, 2015, instead of August 1, 2015.

The Bureau is proposing to move the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments to October 3, 2015. Additionally, the Bureau is proposing to make a conforming amendment to an amendatory instruction that relates to FR Doc. 2014-25503. After considering comments received on the proposal, the Bureau will publish a final rule finalizing an effective date for the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and TILA-RESPA Amendments on an expedited schedule. The Bureau proposes that any final rule delaying the effective date and amending the amendatory instruction take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Section 553(d) of the APA generally requires that the effective date of a final rule be at least 30 days after publication of a final rule, except for (1) a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or relives a restriction; (2) interpretive rules or statements of policy; or (3) as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). The Bureau proposes that good cause exists for the final rule for the delay of the effective date to become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register to reduce industry and consumer confusion and market disruption.

The Bureau also is proposing to make conforming amendments to two provisions of the Regulation Z Official Interpretations (commentary) that were adopted by the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, as discussed in the Section-by-Section Analysis above. The Bureau proposes that any final rule amending the affected commentary provisions take effect on the same effective date as the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and TILA-RESPA Amendments.

In developing the proposed rule, the Bureau has considered potential benefits, costs, and impacts.8 The Bureau requests comment on the preliminary analysis presented below as well as submissions of additional data that could inform the Bureau's analysis of the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. The Bureau has consulted, or offered to consult with, the prudential regulators; the Securities and Exchange Commission; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Inspector General; the Federal Housing Finance Agency; the Federal Trade Commission; the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and the Department of the Treasury, including regarding consistency with any prudential, market, or systemic objectives administered by such agencies.

Because of the Bureau's error, the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot go into effect until the CRA Effective Date. As a result, affected covered persons will incur costs associated with delaying the implementation date.9 These costs include communication with and training of the staff, software programming, vendor and outside supplier coordination, advertising and product development costs, and broker and settlement agent coordination. The Bureau believes that these costs are likely higher for larger creditors and creditors that rely primarily on proprietary systems rather than on third-party software vendors.10 While many of these costs are largely incurred with the initial delay to the CRA Effective Date, affected entities may incur additional costs for subsequent delay beyond August 15, including ongoing training, testing, and opportunity costs. Similarly, consumers will incur costs associated with delaying the effective date. These costs will consist mostly of delayed benefits described in the 1022(b) analysis of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, primarily improved consumer understanding of mortgage loan transactions and an increased ability to shop for a mortgage loan. The longer the delay in the implementation of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule is, the greater the cost to consumers.

Because the TILA-RESPA Final Rule cannot become effective before the CRA Effective Date, the Bureau has evaluated the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule, assuming that the TILA-RESPA Final Rule would become effective on August 15 absent this proposal. The Bureau has relied on a variety of data sources to consider the potential benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule. In some instances, the requisite data are not available or are quite limited. Data with which to quantify the benefits of the rule are particularly limited. As a result, portions of this analysis rely in part on general economic principles to provide a qualitative discussion of the benefits, costs, and impacts of the proposed rule.

This proposed rule proposes to amend the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the TILA-RESPA Amendments. In the 1022(b)(2) analyses of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and TILA-RESPA Amendments, the Bureau previously considered the costs, benefits, and impact of the rules.

The only consumers who would be affected by the proposed rule are consumers that would engage in mortgage shopping between the CRA Effective Date and the proposed effective date of October 3. Those consumers will be harmed by not receiving the benefits of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule. Consumers shopping for a mortgage during the proposed period of delay in the effective date would not receive the benefits of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, even if they closed on their loan after the proposed delayed effective date. The benefits of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule include easier-to-understand disclosures and the requirement that the creditor deliver the closing disclosure containing the settlement information as well as the Truth in Lending disclosures at least three days before closing.11 Some consumers may benefit if the proposed delay results in the industry using the time for more system testing or other preparation leading to a smoother transition to the new disclosure regime. As in the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, the Bureau cannot quantify either the benefit or the cost of the proposed rule to consumers.

Due to industry's implementation difficulties, the Bureau believes that the proposed delay of the CRA Effective Date could benefit many creditors, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents, by allowing them more time to transition to the new disclosure regime required by the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and diminishing the magnitude of any potential disruptions associated with the transition. The proposed delay in the effective date could also benefit them to the extent that it allows them to delay incurring any of the costs described in the TILA-RESPA Final Rule 1022(b) analysis. Creditors and other affected persons might also incur costs due to the proposed delay of the effective date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule. The Bureau believes that three categories would benefit or incur adjustment costs: Creditors that engage in mortgage lending, mortgage brokers, and settlement agents. The Bureau estimates that there were about 11,150 creditors engaged in mortgage lending in 2014 and that there were about 7,000 mortgage brokers and about 7,700 settlement agent firms.12

The Bureau estimated in its 1022(b) analysis of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule that 95 percent of creditors (about 10,600) rely on third-party vendors for their software, and the Bureau estimates that these creditors would not incur significant software programming costs. However, for the 5 percent of the creditors (approximately 560) that do not rely on third-party vendors, the proposed change of the effective date would require some programming expense. While a portion of this cost is already imposed by the delay in the effective date to the CRA Effective Date and therefore would not be costs imposed by this proposed rule, the Bureau believes that some of this cost might be higher if the effective date is delayed further to October 3. The Bureau is uncertain as to the extent of programming expense and requests comment on such expense.

Moreover, the proposed change might also require rearranging an already established operational schedule and business processes. This potential disruption might be costly and require additional effort from the employees and additional expenses due to, for example, overtime pay. This potential disruption might especially affect creditors not relying primarily on third-party vendors.

The Bureau believes that mortgage brokers and settlement agents would incur similar coordination and implementation costs. The Bureau is uncertain of the extent of such costs and requests comment on such costs.

Finally, affected persons would incur costs in internal communications, training, and software re-programming, among other costs. The Bureau believes that the proposed change in the effective date might require communicating with any external suppliers of forms and booklets and potentially ordering additional forms in the current format. Any pre-ordered Loan Estimates or Closing Disclosures mandated by the TILA-RESPA Final Rule would still be usable after October 3, and the Bureau does not believe that the current forms are significantly more expensive than the ones that are required by the TILA-RESPA Final Rule; thus, there should be no net increase in expense of procuring forms and booklets. While many of these costs are already imposed as a result of the delay in the effective date to the CRA Effective Date (and therefore would not be costs imposed by this proposed rule), the Bureau believes that some of the costs might be higher if the Bureau adopts the rule as proposed and further delays the effective date until October 3. The Bureau is uncertain at this time as to the extent of such costs and requests comment on any such costs.

The vast majority of the creditors described above have no more than $10 billion in assets. The Bureau believes that depository institutions with no more than $10 billion in assets would not be differentially affected by the proposed extension of the effective date.

The Bureau does not believe that there would be an adverse impact on credit availability resulting from the proposed extension of the effective date.

The Bureau does not believe that the proposed rule would have a unique impact on consumers in rural areas.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires each agency to consider the potential impact of its regulations on small entities, including small businesses, small governmental units, and small nonprofit organizations. The RFA defines a “small business” as a business that meets the size standard developed by the Small Business Administration pursuant to the Small Business Act.

The RFA generally requires an agency to conduct an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) of any rule subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Bureau also is subject to certain additional procedures under the RFA involving the convening of a panel to consult with small business representatives prior to proposing a rule for which an IRFA is required.

The Bureau concludes that an IRFA is not required for this proposed rule because the proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed above, the proposal would extend the CRA Effective Date of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule and the August 1, 2015 effective date of the TILA-RESPA Amendments to October 3, 2015.

The following table provides the Bureau's estimate of the number and types of entities to which the proposed rule would apply. The table summarizes the number of entities that would be affected if this proposal were finalized.13

The Bureau believes that, as in the 1022(b) analysis of the TILA-RESPA Final Rule, 5 percent of creditors do not utilize software vendors. Some of these creditors could incur significant costs; however, the fraction of small creditors incurring these costs (5 percent) is not substantial.

Accordingly, the undersigned hereby certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), Federal agencies are generally required to seek the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for information collection requirements prior to implementation. The collections of information related to the TILA-RESPA Final Rule has been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the PRA and assigned OMB Control Number 3170-0015 (Regulation Z) and 3170-0016 (Regulation X). Under the PRA, the Bureau may not conduct or sponsor and, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person is not required to respond to an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid control number assigned by OMB.

The Bureau has determined that this proposed rule would not have any new or revised information collection requirements (recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements) on covered entities or members of the public that would constitute collections of information requiring OMB approval under the PRA. The Bureau welcomes comments on this determination or any other aspects of this proposal for purposes of the PRA. Comments should be submitted to the Bureau as instructed in the ADDRESSES part of this notice and to the attention of the Paperwork Reduction Act Officer. All comments will become a matter of public record.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau proposes to amend Regulation Z, 12 CFR part 1026, as set forth below:

The revisions read as follows:

Table of Acronyms COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NJ DOT New Jersey Department of Transportation NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, 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 Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2014-1008] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 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 may change the rule based on your comments.

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2014-1008) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Anyone can search the electronic form of 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).

We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

The Coast Guard issued a Bridge Permit dated April 7, 2011 approving the location and construction of the Witt-Penn Bridge across the Hackensack River, mile 3.1, between Kearny and Jersey City, NJ. The Coast Guard published a Solicitation of Comments from NJ DOT in the First Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners #16 (April 23, 2014), #17 (April 30, 2014), #18 (May 7, 2014), #19 (May 14, 2014, and #20 (May 21, 2014). This solicitation requested comments regarding impacts to navigation from the following proposed tentative channel closures/restrictions:

The contractor's barges will be moved completely out of the channel after work hours during the 40, one-day full channel closures. Closures will not be on consecutive days.

The full channel closure dates are an estimate. The contractor's barges would block the entire Federal channel preventing any vessels from transiting upstream or downstream.

The channel restriction is based on the lift span not operating, but the channel will remain available for vessel transits with an air draft under 70 ft.

Due to project delays construction at the bridge site has been delayed until October 5, 2015 and the tentative channel closure/restriction dates have been revised to:

In addition, channel closure requests are expected when the existing Witt-Penn Bridge is demolished. This is tentatively scheduled to take place between approximately July 2017 and December 31, 2021.

The legal basis for this rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to define regulatory safety zones.

The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and workers from hazards associated with construction on the Witt-Penn Bridge.

The proposed rule will give the COTP authority to prohibit vessel traffic on this portion of the Hackensack River, when necessary, for the safety of vessels and workers during construction work in the channel. The Coast Guard will close the designated area to all traffic during any circumstance, planned or unforeseen, that poses an imminent threat to waterway users or construction operations in the area. Complete waterway closures will be minimized to that period absolutely necessary and made with as much advanced notice as possible. During closures there will not be enough space for mariners to transit through the safety zone between the construction vessels and the current bridge piers.

The COTP would notify the public of the enforcement of this safety zone by marine broadcasts or local notice to mariners. Such notifications would include the date and times of enforcement, along with any pre-determined conditions of entry.

A navigation safety situation created by construction of the new Witt-Penn Bridge and removal of the current Witt-Penn Bridge prompted the proposed rule. This bridge carries Route 7 over the Hackensack River. The existing Witt-Penn Bridge was built in 1930, has been declared functionally obsolete by the Federal Highway Administration. NJ DOT has hired China Construction America Civil, Inc. to construct a new fixed bridge approximately 200 feet upstream of the existing bridge and remove the existing movable, vertical lift bridge. This new bridge will provide a minimum vertical clearance of 70-feet above Mean High Water in the closed position as compared to 35-feet for the existing lift bridge. The new bridge will provide the same 158 foot horizontal clearance. Construction is scheduled to begin mid to late 2015. Scheduled completion of the new bridge and removal of the old bridge is 2021.

The Coast Guard has discussed this project with NJ DOT to determine whether the project can be completed without channel closures and, if possible, what impact that would have on the project timeline. Through these discussions, it became clear that while the majority of construction activities during the span of this project would not require waterway closures, there are certain tasks that can only be completed in the channel and will require closing the waterway.

We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes and executive orders.

This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal as this proposed safety zone will be limited to the Hackensack River area, closures will be of a limited duration, and waterway users have already been notified of the proposed closures through the Local Notice to Mariners.

Advanced public notifications would also be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to marine broadcasts or Local Notice to Mariners which would allow the public an opportunity to plan for these closures.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Waterway closures will be of a limited duration, and waterway users have already been notified of the proposed closures through the Local Notice to Mariners. Public notifications would also be made to local mariners through appropriate means, which may include but are not limited to marine broadcasts or Local Notice to Mariners which would allow the public an opportunity to plan for these closures.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This proposed rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places or vessels.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the establishment of a safety zone which may be categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination will be available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific section of the proposed priority or definition that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority and these proposed definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice in Room 5094, 550 12th Street SW., PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (the Rehabilitation Act), the Rehabilitation Services Administration makes grants to States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations (including institutions of higher education) to support projects that provide training and technical assistance (TA) services designed to increase the numbers of, and improve the skills of, qualified personnel (especially rehabilitation counselors) who are trained to: (1) Provide vocational, medical, social, and psychological rehabilitation services to individuals with disabilities; (2) assist individuals with communication and related disorders; and (3) provide other services authorized under the Rehabilitation Act.

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 385.

This notice contains one proposed priority.

Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Targeted Communities.

State VR agencies are authorized to operate statewide comprehensive, coordinated, effective, efficient, and accountable VR programs. Each program is an integral part of a statewide workforce development system and is designed to assess, plan, develop, and provide VR services for individuals with disabilities, consistent with their unique strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, interests, and informed choice, so that they may prepare for and engage in competitive integrated employment and achieve economic self-sufficiency.

Poverty and disability, considered separately, can, and often do, compound the challenges that workforce development programs and VR programs need to address when offering employment and training services (DeNavas-Walt and Proctor, 2014). For example, 2012-2013 data reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) indicate that only 62 percent of students with disabilities and 73 percent of low-income students graduate from high school, as opposed to 81 percent of students overall. Indeed, regardless of age, individuals who are economically disadvantaged or disabled lag behind their peers, on average, on almost every academic and professional measure, and individuals who are both economically disadvantaged and disabled tend to lag further behind.

Moreover, the barriers to employment faced by individuals who are both economically disadvantaged and disabled are compounded when they reside in communities that have high crime rates, low-performing schools, insufficient access to public transportation, few employers, and a paucity of social service programs. Accordingly, State VR agencies have had limited success when serving economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities in these communities.

Research suggests that the substandard participation rates and types of employment outcomes achieved through the VR system by economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities may be shaped more by social and economic circumstances than by their cognitive, physical, or communication limitations or by their limited occupational experience, skills, and training. In general, these studies point out that as economic conditions improve and as unemployment levels decline, the demand for disability payments and VR services decreases (Fremstad, 2009; RSA, 2015).

Economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities tend to have greater VR needs and fewer resources than more financially secure individuals with disabilities. Further, individuals with disabilities are much more likely to experience material hardships—such as food insecurity, inability to pay rent, mortgage, and utilities, or inability to afford needed medical care—than individuals without disabilities at the same income levels (Fremstad, 2009). Likewise, individuals with disabilities have greater VR needs because of the all-too-often debilitating impact upon their workforce development skills resulting from longstanding inferior access to quality schools and community support systems. Accordingly, in low-income communities there tends to be a heightened need for comprehensive wrap-around VR services for individuals with disabilities, including basic education, remedial learning, and literacy services.

The VRTAC-TC would seek both to address the persistent opportunity gaps that exist, regardless of race, between poor neighborhoods and middle class and wealthier communities and to eliminate barriers that too often prevent individuals with disabilities from low-income communities from fully accessing and benefitting from VR services. To help remedy the support gaps that may exist, the VRTAC-TC would promote greater availability of an array of comprehensive VR services, including pre-employment transition services, transition services, and customized VR services.

The VRTAC-TC would work from the assumption that VR alone cannot effectively and efficiently address the persistent, pervasive, multi-layered economic and disability-related barriers to employment specific to economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities who live in targeted communities. This priority, therefore, is designed to provide State VR agencies and their partners with the skills and competencies needed to effectively and efficiently address these barriers and help these individuals achieve competitive integrated employment.

The VRTAC-TC would provide intensive technical assistance to State VR agencies and their partners that is designed to maximize community support services in targeted communities, complement VR services, and promote competitive integrated employment consistent with informed choice for economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities.

These targeted communities, serving as intensive field-based intervention sites, would also serve as the basis for the VRTAC-TC, along with an online VR community of practice, to develop effective practices for serving VR consumers throughout the Nation who are both disabled and economically disadvantaged.

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services proposes to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a Vocational Rehabilitation Technical Assistance Center for Targeted Communities (VRTAC-TC) to provide technical assistance (TA) and training to upgrade and increase the competency, skills, and knowledge of vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors and other professionals to assist economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities (as defined in this notice) to achieve competitive integrated employment outcomes.

The VRTAC-TC will facilitate linkages for the State VR agencies through substantial outreach to partner agencies within targeted communities (as defined in this notice) to increase the resources and key partnerships needed to address the daily living stressors that often result in unsuccessful VR case closures, including childcare needs, homelessness, hunger, safety concerns, interpersonal issues, and lack of transportation, basic or remedial education services, and literacy services.

The VRTAC-TC must, at a minimum, develop and provide training, TA, and opportunities for ongoing discussion in each of the following areas to rehabilitation professionals and staff from both (1) the State VR agencies and partner agencies who are serving the targeted communities, and (2) diverse service providers throughout the Nation, including State VR agency staff, who work with high-leverage groups with national applicability (as defined in this notice) in other economically disadvantaged communities similar to the targeted communities that are the focus of this priority:

(a) Developing and maintaining formal and informal partnerships and relationships with relevant stakeholders (including, but not limited to, State and local social service and community development agencies, correctional facilities, community rehabilitation programs (CRPs), school systems, and employers) for the following coordinated activities:

(1) Increasing referrals to the State VR system for economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the targeted communities; and

(2) Facilitating the provision of support services by stakeholders to VR consumers and applicants from at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the targeted communities;

(b) Developing and implementing outreach policies and procedures based on evidence-based and promising practices that ensure that consumers with disabilities from each of the targeted communities are located, identified, and evaluated for services; and

(c) Developing and implementing collaborative and coordinated service strategies designed to increase the number of consumers with disabilities from targeted communities who are served by the State VR agencies, receive support services from other stakeholders, and obtain, maintain, regain, or advance in competitive integrated employment.

To meet the requirements of this priority, the VRTAC-TC must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:

(a) Within the first year, survey each of the 80 State VR agencies regarding the action steps, including emerging, promising, and evidence-based practices utilized, that the VR agencies have previously used to address substandard participation levels and performance outcomes achieved by residents of targeted communities within their States;

(b) Within the first year, conduct a literature review of emerging, promising, and evidence-based practices relevant to the work of the VRTAC-TC. The review should include, at a minimum, research on place-based interventions and the particular needs of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities;

(c) By the end of the first year, post on its Web site the results of its survey and literature review; and

(d) Categorize, analyze, and provide an opportunity for interactive commentary by VR professionals about all information posted on its Web site in order to identify the workforce participation challenges and resources that underserved individuals with disabilities (as defined in this notice) from economically disadvantaged communities tend to have in common and to identify examples of the types of VR services that have been used to address their employment and training needs. This interactive process should facilitate both evaluating and adjusting the ongoing and planned interventions within the targeted communities and the development of effective practices for the nationwide VR community.

(a) In the first year, survey each of the 80 State VR agencies to identify two or more groups of underserved individuals with disabilities from one or more targeted communities in each of their respective States. All identified targeted communities in each State must meet the eligibility requirements for designation as an Empowerment Zone under either 24 CFR 598.100 or 7 CFR 25.100;

(b) Develop intensive TA (as defined in this notice) proposals for at least 20 targeted communities to present to the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA). The proposals must:

(1) Include communities that reflect national diversity with respect to State, region, and culture. Communities must be situated in at least 12 States and territories located within no fewer than eight of the nine Census Divisions (State groupings) defined by the U.S. Census Bureau (For more information on Census Divisions, see www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.html). No more than two targeted communities may be located within any one State or territory, and no more than four may be located within any one Census Division; and

(2) Include the following information for each targeted community recommended:

(A) A map that shows the targeted community's boundaries and relevant demographic characteristics, including poverty concentration;

(B) Documentation that within the targeted community's boundaries:

(i) The median household income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; and

(ii) The rate of unemployment is at or above the national annual average rate;

(C) A performance chart of State VR agency data that documents substandard participation levels and performance outcomes achieved by VR consumers and applicants from high-leverage groups with national applicability from the targeted communities in comparison to the State's overall performance that includes the following for all relevant groups:

(i) The number of applicants and percentage of the overall population;

(ii) The number and percentage of individuals determined eligible;

(iii) The number and percentage of individuals receiving VR services pursuant to an individualized plan for employment;

(iv) The number and percentage of individuals whose service records were closed without employment; and

(v) The number and percentage of individuals whose service records were closed after achieving employment;

(D) A brief (one or two pages) overview by the State VR agency addressing the following for high-leverage groups with national applicability from the targeted communities:

(i) The factors that the agency believes have contributed to the substandard performance outlined in the chart; and

(ii) Action steps that the VR agency has previously taken to address these performance gaps;

(E) A two- or three-page proposed intensive TA work plan by the VRTAC-TC that addresses:

(i) The performance gaps summarized in the chart required by paragraph (b)(2)(C) of this section;

(ii) The barriers to employment described in the State VR agency's overview statement required by paragraph (b)(2)(D) of this section;

(iii) The strategies being proposed to remediate the identified barriers in the targeted community;

(iv) The potential replicability of the strategies in the work plan for targeted communities in other parts of the State; and

(v) The potential to replicate the strategies in the work plan for targeted communities in other States; and

(F) Letters of support from the State VR agency and partners in the community (e.g., employers, secondary and post-secondary educational institutions, and community leaders) stating their intent to work cooperatively with the VRTAC-TC should the targeted community be chosen as a recipient of intensive TA.

(a) By the end of the first year, provide RSA with, at minimum, 10 proposals (as described in paragraph (b) of the “Targeted Community Selection and Development” section of this priority) from which RSA will select six to receive intensive TA from the VRTAC-TC;

(b) By no later than the third quarter of the second year provide RSA with, at minimum, 10 proposals (as described in paragraph (b) of the “Targeted Community Selection and Development” section of this priority) in addition to the proposals described in paragraph (a) of this section, from which RSA will select six to receive intensive TA from the VRTAC-TC;

(c) By no later than the first quarter of the second year, begin providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in at least three of the targeted communities approved by RSA in the first year;

(d) By no later than the third quarter of the second year, be providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in all targeted communities approved by RSA in the first year;

(e) By no later than the first quarter of the third year, begin providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, in at least three of the targeted communities approved by RSA in the second year; and

(f) By no later than the third quarter of the third year, be providing intensive TA to VR staff, CRPs, employers, education and training entities, and community leaders, as appropriate, to all targeted communities approved by RSA in the second year.

(a) At a minimum, provide intensive TA that is aligned with the proposals described in paragraph (b) of the Targeted Community Selection and Development section of this priority to the VR agency within each of the targeted communities on the following topic areas, as appropriate:

(1) Using labor market data and occupational information to provide individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability who reside in targeted communities with information about job demand, skills matching, supports, education, training, and career options;

(2) Providing disability-related consultation and services to employers about competitive integrated employment of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

(3) Building and maintaining relationships in targeted communities with industry leaders, employer associations, and prospective employers of economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

(4) Building and maintaining relationships with secondary and post-secondary institutions and CRPs that serve to support transition activities and leverage programs and providers of basic education, remedial learning, and literacy services to the targeted communities and are committed to providing individualized wrap-around VR services that are attuned to the remedial and ongoing support services needed by economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities;

(5) Building and maintaining alliances with schools, community organizations, and business leaders with a heightened understanding of the acculturation and assimilation issues within the targeted communities regarding culture, religion, language, dialect, and socioeconomic status that might be impeding full participation of the economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability; and

(6) Developing services for providers of customized training and other types of training that are directly responsive to employer needs and hiring requirements for economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability;

(b) By the end of the first year, post on its Web site State agency overview statements specific to high-leverage groups with national applicability along with related VR research studies identified by the VRTAC-TC;

(c) Establish no fewer than two communities of practice with the following areas of focus:

(1) One community of practice should be designed to specifically support State VR agency and related agency staff and management serving targeted communities; and

(2) One community of practice should be designed to be open to all staff and management serving economically disadvantaged communities nationwide and to address the employment needs of individuals with disabilities in those communities;

(d) Ensure that the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of this section focus on partnerships across service systems designed to develop, implement, adjust, support, and evaluate VR processes and strategies for promoting competitive integrated employment for high-leverage groups with national applicability from targeted communities; and

(e) Develop and make available to State VR agencies and their associated rehabilitation professionals and service providers a range of targeted TA and general TA products and services designed to increase VR participation levels and outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities from targeted communities. This TA must include, at a minimum, the following activities:

(1) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA; and Note: All products produced by the VRTAC-TC must meet government and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. In meeting these requirements, the VRTAC-TC may either develop a new platform or system, or modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the requirements of the priority are met.

(2) Ensuring that all TA products are sent to the National Center for Rehabilitation Training Materials, including course curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, and examples of emerging and best practices related to this priority;

(f) During the fourth quarter of both the second year and the fourth year, develop and implement year-end national State VR agency forums dedicated to discussing the progress and lessons learned from the targeted communities; and

(g) During the fourth quarter of the fifth year, present a national results meeting to State VR agencies to review the data collected, best practices developed, and lessons learned from the intensive intervention sites served within the 12 targeted communities, as well as the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of this section.

(a) Facilitate communication and coordination on an ongoing basis with other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local government workforce development partners, as well as private and nonprofit social service agencies and other VR TA centers funded by RSA, in order to:

(1) Maximize existing individual and community assets to effectively address socioeconomic issues that impact employment and overall well-being;

(2) Create a mechanism for partner organizations and community members to participate in the VR program planning process, including brainstorming and vetting new ideas and approaches to VR service provision;

(3) Create an active online community of practice that addresses the needs of participants;

(4) Organize the online community of practice to address both general barriers to employment faced by individuals with disabilities from targeted communities, and barriers to employment faced by individuals with disabilities from diverse high-leverage groups with national applicability including, but not limited to, adjudicated adults and youth, persons with multiple disabilities, and high school dropouts; and

(5) Provide greater access for targeted communities to culturally relevant VR services provided by State VR agency personnel with the support of VRTAC-TC staff and community partners;

(b) Communicate and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with the communities of practice described in paragraph (c) of the Technical Assistance Activities section of this notice; and

(c) Maintain ongoing communications with the RSA project officer.

To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the following application requirements. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet these requirements, which are:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Recruit State VR agencies to identify targeted communities with intensive TA needs to take part in the services supported by this priority, including a detailed description of the primary factors and processes proposed to facilitate the identification and selection of these communities;

(2) Address State VR agencies' capacity to meet the employment and training needs of individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability from targeted communities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:

(i) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in conducting outreach and providing VR services to applicants and consumers from economically disadvantaged communities; and

(ii) Demonstrate knowledge of emerging and best practices in conducting outreach and providing VR services to high-leverage groups with national applicability that are frequently reported as underserved or achieving substandard employment outcomes in statewide comprehensive needs assessments, VR-related research studies, or monitoring reports prepared by RSA pursuant to periodic onsite monitoring visits; and

(3) Result in increases both in the number of individuals with disabilities from high-leverage groups with national applicability receiving services from State VR agencies within targeted communities and the number and quality of employment outcomes in competitive integrated employment achieved by these individuals;

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application, under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

(ii) A plan for how the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes; and

(iii) A plan for communicating and coordinating with key staff in State VR agencies, State and local partner programs, RSA partners such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB), and other TA Centers and relevant programs within the Departments of Education, Labor, and Commerce;

(2) Use a conceptual framework to develop project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

(3) Be based on current research and make use of evidence-based and promising practices;

(4) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(5) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration;

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Measure and track the effectiveness of the TA provided. To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed approach to—

(i) Collecting data on the effectiveness of the TA activity from State VR agencies, partners, or other sources, as appropriate; and

(ii) Analyzing data and determining the effectiveness of the TA provided for at least two high-leverage groups with national applicability residing in each of the 12 targeted communities. This process includes evaluation of the effectiveness of current practices within the selected targeted communities throughout the project period, with a goal of demonstrating substantial progress towards achieving outcome parity for the high-leverage groups and other targeted groups with the State VR agency's overall performance with respect to number of applications received and processed, eligibility assessments completed, and both the number and quality of employment outcomes achieved;

(2) Conduct an evaluation of progress made by all of the targeted communities on an annual basis. At the end of the final year of the project, the VRTAC-TC will submit a final report on the project performance to detail the outcomes of individuals with disabilities in the targeted communities. The evaluation will utilize multiple data points as evidence of progress as compared to the baseline established at the beginning of the project, including State VR agency reported data, changes in State policies and procedures, customer surveys, and State personnel input, as well as any other relevant stakeholder input; and

(3) Collect and analyze preliminary quantitative and qualitative data of VR services facilitated and the outcomes achieved by economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities in at least one other part of the State in which a targeted community is located. State VR personnel from the targeted communities approved by RSA within the first year will serve as trainers for colleagues in other parts of the State by applying or modifying the strategies learned from the VRTAC-TC;

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide TA to State VR agencies and their partners for each of the activities in this priority and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(3) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits;

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors will be allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including those of State and local personnel, TA providers, researchers, and policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

We propose the following definitions to help ensure that applicants clearly understand how we use these terms in the priority. We base these definitions on definitions that the Department uses or relies on in other contexts.

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

Economically disadvantaged individuals with disabilities means individuals with disabilities who are from a household with a median household income below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; individuals receiving Federal financial assistance through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), or Supplemental Security Income (SSI); or individuals residing in public housing or receiving assistance under the Section 8 housing-choice voucher program.

General technical assistance (TA) means TA and information provided to independent users through their own initiative, resulting in minimal interaction with TA center staff and including one-time, invited or offered conference presentations by TA center staff. This category of TA also includes information or products, such as newsletters, guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded from the TA center's Web site by independent users. Brief communications by TA center staff with recipients, either by telephone or email, are also considered universal, general TA.

High-leverage groups with national applicability means groups of individuals with disabilities who are frequently identified by State VR agencies throughout the Nation in their statewide comprehensive needs assessments as groups comprised of individuals that are either underserved or who have achieved substandard performance. Examples of these groups include, but are not limited to, the following populations:

(A) Residents of rural and remote communities;

(B) Adjudicated adults and youth;

(C) Youth with disabilities in foster care;

(D) Individuals with disabilities receiving Federal financial assistance through TANF;

(E) Culturally diverse populations, e.g., African Americans, Native Americans, and non-English speaking populations;

(F) High school dropouts and functionally illiterate consumers;

(G) Persons with multiple disabilities, e.g., deaf-blindness, HIV/AIDS-substance abuse; and

(H) SSI and SSDI recipients, including subminimum-wage employees.

Intensive technical assistance (TA) means TA services often provided on-site and requiring a stable, ongoing relationship between the VRTAC-TC staff and the TA recipient. Intensive TA should result in changes to policy, programs, practices, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

Targeted community means any economically disadvantaged community that qualifies as an Empowerment Zone under either 24 CFR 598.100 or 7 CFR 25.100, and in which (a) the median household income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; (b) the unemployment rate is at or above the national average; and (c) as a group, individuals with disabilities have historically sought, been determined eligible for, or received VR services from a State VR agency at less than 65 percent of the average rate for the State VR agency, or who have achieved competitive integrated employment outcomes subsequent to receiving VR services at 65 percent or less of the State VR agency's overall employment outcome level.

Targeted technical assistance (TA) means TA services based on needs common to multiple recipients and not extensively individualized. A relationship is established between the TA recipient and one or more TA center staff. This category of TA includes one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating strategic planning or hosting regional or national conferences. It can also include episodic, less labor-intensive events that extend over a period of time, such as facilitating a series of conference calls on single or multiple topics that are designed around the needs of the recipients. Facilitating communities of practice can also be considered targeted, specialized TA.

Underserved individuals with disabilities means individuals with disabilities who, because of disability, place of residence, geographic location, age, race, gender, or socioeconomic status, have not historically sought, been determined eligible for, or received VR services at a rate of 65 percent or more of the State's overall service level groups. Underserved individuals include, but are not limited to, subminimum wage employees; adjudicated youth and adults; culturally diverse populations such as African Americans, Native Americans, and non-English speaking persons; individuals living in rural areas; and persons with multiple disabilities such as deaf-blindness.

Final Priority and Definitions: We will announce the final priority and definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority and definitions after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that would maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing the proposed priority and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

The benefits of the Rehabilitation Training program have been well established over the years through the successful completion of similar projects. The proposed priority and definitions would better prepare State VR agency personnel to assist individuals with disabilities living in targeted communities to achieve competitive integrated employment in today's challenging labor market.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

When submitting comments, remember to:

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

This rulemaking addresses June 12, 2014, submissions from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) intended to address all applicable infrastructure requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This rulemaking also addresses a February 3, 2015, letter from MPCA intended to clarify issues relating to emission limits and other control measures (clarification letter).

Under section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA, states are required to submit infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS, including the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These submissions must contain any revisions needed for meeting the applicable SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2), or certifications that their existing SIPs for the NAAQS already meet those requirements.

EPA highlighted this statutory requirement in an October 2, 2007, guidance document entitled “Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards” (2007 Guidance) and has issued additional guidance documents, the most recent on September 13, 2013, entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under CAA Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)” (2013 Guidance). The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and address the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Minnesota that address the infrastructure requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make SIP submissions of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1), which states that states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as SIP submissions that address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D and the PSD requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, and “regional haze SIP” submissions required to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A.

In this rulemaking, EPA will not take action on three substantive areas of section 110(a)(2): (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction (“SSM”) at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions limits with limited public notice or without requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA; and, (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Instead, EPA has the authority to address each one of these substantive areas in separate rulemakings. A detailed history, interpretation, and rationale as they relate to infrastructure SIP requirements can be found in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rule entitled, “Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS” in the section, “What is the scope of this rulemaking?” (see 79 FR 27241 at 27242-27245, May 13, 2014).

EPA's guidance for these infrastructure SIP submissions is embodied in the 2007 Guidance referenced above. Specifically, attachment A of the 2007 Guidance (Required Section 110 SIP Elements) identifies the statutory elements that states need to submit in order to satisfy the requirements for an infrastructure SIP submission. As discussed above, EPA issued additional guidance, the most recent being the 2013 Guidance that further clarifies aspects of infrastructure SIPs that are not NAAQS specific.

Pursuant to section 110(a), states must provide reasonable notice and opportunity for public hearing for all infrastructure SIP submissions. MPCA provided notice of a public comment period on March 31, 2014, and closed the public comment period on May 2, 2014. One comment was received; both the comment and MPCA's response to this comment were included in MPCA's submittal to EPA.

Minnesota provided a detailed synopsis of how various components of its SIP meet each of the applicable requirements in section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, as applicable. The following review evaluates the state's submissions.

This section requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and other control measures, means or techniques, schedules for compliance, and other related matters. However, EPA has long interpreted emission limits and control measures for attaining the standards as being due when nonattainment planning requirements are due.2 In the context of an infrastructure SIP, EPA is not evaluating the existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only evaluating whether the state's SIP has basic structural provisions for the implementation of the NAAQS.

Minnesota Statute (Minn. Stat.) 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to “adopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of law relating to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or control of air pollution.” Also from Minn. Stat. 116.07, MPCA has the authority to issue “continue in effect or deny permits . . . for the prevention of pollution, for the emission of air contaminants,” and for other purposes.

The 2013 Guidance states that to satisfy section 110(a)(2)(A) requirements, “an air agency's submission should identify existing EPA-approved SIP provisions or new SIP provisions that the air agency has adopted and submitted for EPA approval that limit emissions of pollutants relevant to the subject NAAQS, including precursors of the relevant NAAQS pollutant where applicable.” In its February 3, 2015, clarification letter, MPCA identified existing controls and emission limits in Minnesota Rules (Minn. R.) that support compliance with and attainment of the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These regulations include controls and emission limits for volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are precursors to ozone. Emissions for these pollutants and precursors are primarily limited through part 70 permits.

Minn. R. 7009.0020 states that “[n]o person shall emit any pollutant in such an amount or in such a manner as to cause or contribute to a violation of any ambient air quality standard beyond such person's property line . . .” Minn. R. 7009.0080 sets the state ambient air quality standards.

On January 1, 2015, EPA began implementing the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Minnesota is subject to CSAPR's requirements regarding annual NOX and SO2 power plant emissions, which are intended to address transport of PM2.5 to downwind states. EPA and MPCA expect that CSAPR will result in reduced NOX and SO2 emissions from Minnesota's power plants, which will assist Minnesota's efforts to attain and maintain the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Though Minnesota has never had nonattainment areas for ozone, NO2, or PM2.5, Minnesota has maintenance areas for the 1971 SO2 and 1987 PM10 3 NAAQS. Therefore, most of Minnesota's pollutant-specific rules relate to SO2 and PM10. Because PM2.5 is a subcategory of PM10, controls relating to PM10 can be expected to limit emissions of PM2.5. Similarly, controls relating to PM can be expected to limit emissions of PM2.5.

In its clarification letter, MPCA identified enforceable permits and administrative orders with SO2 emission limits. In previous rulemakings, EPA has approved these permits and orders into Minnesota's SIP (see 59 FR 17703, April 14, 1994; 64 FR 5936, February 8, 1999; 66 FR 14087, March 9, 2001; 67 FR 8727, February 26, 2002; 72 FR 68508, December 5, 2007; 74 FR 18138, April 21, 2009; 74 FR 18634, April 24, 2009; 74 FR 18638, April 24, 2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 2009; 75 FR 45480, August 3, 2010; 75 FR 48864, August 12, 2010; 75 FR 81471, December 28, 2010; and 78 FR 28501, May 15, 2013). Also, an administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP includes SO2 limits. Additionally, state rules that have been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.1400 to 7011.1430, 7011.1600 to 7011.1605, and 7011.2300) contain SO2 emission limits. Also, Minn. R. 7011.0900 to 7011.0909 include fuel sulfur content restrictions that can limit SO2 emissions. These regulations support compliance with and attainment of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

In its clarification letter, MPCA identified enforceable permits and administrative orders with PM emission limits. In previous rulemakings, EPA has approved these permits and orders into Minnesota's SIP (see 59 FR 7218, February 15, 1994; 60 FR 31088, June 13, 1995; 62 FR 39120, July 22, 1997; 65 FR 42861, July 12, 2000; 69 FR 51371, August 19, 2004; 72 FR 51713, September 11, 2007; 74 FR 23632, May 20, 2009; 74 FR 63066, December 2, 2009; 75 FR 11461, March 11, 2010; and 75 FR 78602, December 16, 2010). Additionally, state rules that have been incorporated into Minnesota's SIP (at Minn. R. 7011.0150, 7011.0500 to 7011.0553, 7011.0600 to 7011.0625, 7011.0710 to 7011.0735, 7011.0850 to 7011.0859, 7011.0900 to 7011.0922, 7011.1000 to 7011.1015, 7011.1100 to 7011.1125, 7011.1300 to 7011.1325, and 7011.1400 to 7011.1430) contain PM emission limits. These regulations support compliance with and attainment of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VOC emissions are limited by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, which are incorporated by reference into Minnesota's state rules at Minn R. 7011.7000. Part 70 permits are Minnesota's primary method for limiting VOC emissions. NOX emissions ae limited by Minn. R. 7011.0500 to 7011.0553 and 7011.1700 to 7011.1705, as well as an administrative order issued as part of Minnesota's Regional Haze SIP. These regulations support compliance with and attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because NO2 is a subcategory of NOX, controls relating to NOX can be expected to limit emissions of NO2. These regulations support compliance with and attainment of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

In this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to incorporate into Minnesota's SIP any new provisions in Minnesota's state rules that have not been previously approved by EPA. EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions or rules related to start-up, shutdown or malfunction or director's discretion in the context of section 110(a)(2)(A). EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires SIPs to include provisions to provide for establishing and operating ambient air quality monitors, collecting and analyzing ambient air quality data, and making these data available to EPA upon request. This review of the annual monitoring plan includes EPA's determination that the state: (i) Monitors air quality at appropriate locations throughout the state using EPA-approved Federal Reference Methods or Federal Equivalent Method monitors; (ii) submits data to EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) in a timely manner; and, (iii) provides EPA Regional Offices with prior notification of any planned changes to monitoring sites or the network plan.

MPCA continues to operate an ambient pollutant monitoring network, and compiles and reports air quality data to EPA. EPA approved MPCA's 2015 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan for ozone, NO2, SO2, and PM2.5 on October 31, 2014. MPCA also provides prior notification to EPA when changes to its monitoring network or plan are being considered. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(B) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires each state to provide a program for enforcement of control measures. Section 110(a)(2)(C) also includes various requirements relating to PSD.

States are required to include a program providing for enforcement of all SIP measures and the regulation of construction of new or modified stationary sources to meet new source review (NSR) requirements under PSD and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) programs. Part C of the CAA (sections 160 through 169B) addresses PSD, while part D of the CAA (sections 171 through 193) addresses NNSR requirements.

Minn. Stat. 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to enforce any provisions of the chapter relating to air contamination. These provisions include: Entering into orders, schedules of compliance, stipulation agreements, requiring owners or operators of emissions facilities to install and operate monitoring equipment, and conducting investigations. Minn. Stat. 116.072 authorizes MPCA to issue orders and assess administrative penalties to correct violations of the agency's rules, statutes, and permits, and Minn. Stat. 115.071 outlines the remedies that are available to address such violations. Lastly, Minn. R. 7009.0030 to 7009.0040 provide for enforcement measures. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the program for enforcement of control measures requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

110(a)(2)(C) includes several PSD requirements relevant to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. These are evaluated as four components: Identification of NOX as a precursor to ozone provisions in the PSD program; identification of precursors to PM2.5 and the identification of PM2.5 and PM10 condensables in the PSD program; PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; and greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting and the “Tailoring Rule.”

States may develop and implement their own PSD programs, which are evaluated against EPA's requirements for each component. States may alternatively decline to develop their own program, but instead directly implement Federal PSD rules. Minnesota has chosen to implement the Federally promulgated PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21, and EPA has delegated to Minnesota the authority to implement these regulations. The Federally promulgated rules satisfy all 110(a)(2)(C) requirements relating to PSD.

As described in the 2013 Guidance, when evaluating whether a state has met infrastructure SIP obligations, EPA cannot give “credit” for a Federally delegated program. Because Minnesota's submission did not include state rules meeting PSD requirements, EPA therefore must propose a disapproval for this section. However, Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another state.

On February 17, 2012, EPA promulgated designations for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, stating for the entire country that, “The EPA is designating areas as “unclassifiable/attainment” to mean that available information does not indicate that the air quality in these areas exceeds the 2010 NO2 NAAQS” (see 77 FR 9532). For comparison purposes, EPA examined the design values 4 based on data collected between 2011 and 2013 from NO2 monitors in Minnesota and surrounding states. Within Minnesota, the highest design value was 44 ppb at a monitor in Dakota County. In surrounding states, the highest design value was 49 ppb at a monitor in Milwaukee, WI. These design values are both lower than the standard, which is 100 ppb for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Additionally, as discussed in EPA's evaluation of 110(a)(2)(A) requirements, Minn. R. 7011 contains controls and emission limits for NOX. Furthermore, CSAPR requires reductions of NOX emissions in order to reduce interstate transport. MPCA works with EPA in implementing the CSAPR program. EPA believes that, in conjunction with the continued implementation of the state's ability to limit NOX emissions, low monitored values of NO2 will continue in and around Minnesota. In other words, NO2 emissions from Minnesota are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.

In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to transport for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to transport for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS

As described above, EPA has classified all areas of the country as “unclassifiable/attainment” for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, NO2 design values in and around Minnesota are lower than the standard, MPCA is able to control NO2 emissions, and CSAPR requires reductions in NOX emissions. In other words, NO2 emissions from Minnesota are not expected to interfere with the maintenance of the 2010 NO2 NAAQS in another state.

In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to interference with maintenance for the 2008 ozone, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to interference with maintenance for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires SIPs to include provisions prohibiting interference with PSD. EPA acknowledges that Minnesota has not adopted or submitted regulations for PSD, which results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements. However, Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these requirements can be satisfied by an approved SIP addressing reasonably attributable visibility impairment, if required, or an approved SIP addressing regional haze.

In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements relating to visibility for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking.

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires each SIP to contain adequate provisions requiring compliance with the applicable requirements of section 126 and section 115 of the CAA (relating to interstate and international pollution abatement, respectively).

The submissions from Minnesota affirm that the state has no pending obligations under section 115.

Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. The statute does not specify the method by which the source should provide the notification. States with SIP-approved PSD programs must have a provision requiring such notification by new or modified sources. A lack of such a requirement in state rules would be grounds for disapproval of this element.

EPA acknowledges that Minnesota has not adopted or submitted regulations for PSD, which results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements. However, Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires each state to provide for adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under state law to carry out its SIP, and related issues. Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) also requires each state to comply with the requirements respecting state boards under section 128.

Minnesota provided information on the state's authorized spending by program, program priorities, and the state budget. MPCA's Environmental Performance Partnership Agreement (EnPPA) with EPA provides the MPCA's assurances of resources to carry out certain air programs. EPA also notes that Minn. Stat. 116.07 provides the legal authority under state law to carry out the SIP. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(E) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(E) also requires each SIP to contain provisions that comply with the state board requirements of section 128 of the CAA. That provision contains two explicit requirements: (i) That any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders under this chapter shall have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits and enforcement orders under this chapter, and (ii) that any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be adequately disclosed.

In its June 12, 2014, submittal, MPCA included rules from the Civil Service Rule at 2-8.3(a)(1) for incorporation into the SIP, pursuant to section 128 of the CAA.

In this rulemaking, EPA is not evaluating section 110(a)(2)(E) requirements relating to state board requirements for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Instead, EPA will evaluate these requirements in a separate rulemaking.

States must establish a system to monitor emissions from stationary sources and submit periodic emissions reports. Each plan shall also require the installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources. The state plan shall also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources, and correlation of such reports by each state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this chapter. Lastly, the reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection.

Under Minnesota air quality rules, any NAAQS is an applicable requirement for stationary sources. Minnesota's monitoring rules have been previously approved by EPA and are contained in Minnesota's SIP at Minn. R. 7011. Minn. Stat. 116.07 gives MPCA the authority to require owners or operators of emission facilities to install and operate monitoring equipment, while Minnesota's SIP at Minn. R. 7007.0800 sets forth the minimum monitoring requirements that must be included in stationary source permits. Lastly, Minnesota's SIP at Minn. R. 7017 of contains monitoring and testing requirements, including rules for continuous monitoring. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(F) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires that a plan provide for authority that is analogous to what is provided in section 303 of the CAA, and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. The 2013 Guidance states that infrastructure SIP submissions should specify authority, rested in an appropriate official, to restrain any source from causing or contributing to emissions which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or the environment.

Minn. Stat. 116.11 provides to MPCA emergency powers, which are further discussed in Minn. R. 7000.5000. Specifically, these regulations allow the agency to “direct the immediate discontinuance or abatement of the pollution without notice and without a hearing or at the request of the agency, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the state in the appropriate district court for a temporary restraining order to immediately abate or prevent the pollution.” EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires states to have the authority to revise their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or to an EPA finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate.

Minn. Stat. 116.07 grants the agency the authority to “[a]dopt, amend, and rescind rules and standards having the force of law relating to any purpose . . . for the prevention, abatement, or control of air pollution.” EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(H) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

The CAA requires that each plan or plan revision for an area designated as a nonattainment area meet the applicable requirements of part D of the CAA. Part D relates to nonattainment areas.

As outlined in the 2013 guidance, EPA has determined that section 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. Section 110(a)(2)(I) is not being addressed and does not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission.

The evaluation of the submissions from Minnesota with respect to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are described below.

States must provide a process for consultation with local governments and Federal Land Managers (FLMs) carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements.

Historically, MPCA actively participated in the Central Regional Air Planning Association as well as the Central States Air Resource Agencies. Additionally, Minnesota is now an active member of the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, which provides technical assessments and a forum for discussion regarding air quality issues to member states. Minnesota has also demonstrated that it frequently consults and discusses issues with pertinent Tribes. Therefore, EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

Section 110(a)(2)(J) also requires states to notify the public if NAAQS are exceeded in an area and to enhance public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances.

Minnesota dedicates portions of the MPCA Web site to enhancing public awareness of measures that can be taken to prevent exceedances. For example, information on these pages includes information about specific air pollutants,5 as well as the biennial reports that MPCA prepares for the state legislature.6 EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of this portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

States must meet applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) related to PSD. Minnesota's PSD program in the context of infrastructure SIPs has already been discussed in the paragraphs addressing section 110(a)(2)(C) and (a)(2)(D)(i)(II). EPA acknowledges that Minnesota has not adopted or submitted regulations for PSD, which results in a proposed disapproval with respect to this set of infrastructure SIP requirements. However, Minnesota has no further obligations to EPA because the state administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. EPA proposes a disapproval of the PSD requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

With regard to the applicable requirements for visibility protection, states are subject to visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). In the event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, the visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus, we find that there is no new visibility obligation “triggered” under section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective.

EPA has determined that the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not applicable to the infrastructure SIP process. The visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(J) are not being addressed and do not need to be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP submission.

SIPs must provide for performing air quality modeling for predicting effects on air quality of emissions from any NAAQS pollutant and submission of such data to EPA upon request.

MPCA reviews the potential impact of major and some minor new sources. Under Minn. R. 7007.0500, MPCA may require applicable major sources in Minnesota to perform modeling to show that emissions do not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS. Furthermore, MPCA maintains the capability to perform its own modeling. Because Minnesota administers the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, pre-construction permitting modeling is conducted in compliance with EPA's regulations. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(K) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

This section requires SIPs to mandate each major stationary source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing a permit.

MPCA implements and operates the title V permit program, which EPA approved on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62967). Minn. R. 7002.0005 through 7002.0085 contain the provisions, requirements, and structures associated with the costs for reviewing, approving, implementing, and enforcing various types of permits. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(L) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

States must consult with and allow participation from local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.

Minnesota regularly consults with local political subdivisions affected by the SIP, where applicable. EPA observes that Minn. Stat. 116.05 authorizes cooperation and agreement between MPCA and other State and local governments. Additionally, the Minnesota Administrative Procedures Act (Minn. Stat. 14) provides general notice and comment procedures that are followed during SIP development. Lastly, MPCA regularly issues public notices on proposed actions. EPA proposes that Minnesota has met the infrastructure SIP requirements of section 110(a)(2)(M) with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

EPA is proposing to approve most elements of submissions from Minnesota certifying that its current SIP is sufficient to meet the required infrastructure elements under section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We are also proposing to disapprove some elements of the state's submission as they relate to its PSD program. As described above, Minnesota already administers Federally promulgated PSD regulations through delegation, and therefore no practical effect is associated with today's proposed disapproval or future final disapproval of those elements.

EPA's proposed actions for the state's satisfaction of infrastructure SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) and NAAQS, are contained in the table below.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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).

This rulemaking proposes to approve Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision, including a technical demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa), Consumer and Commercial Products, 1 and Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), Gasoline Marketing (hereinafter referred to as the “Georgia Fuel Rule”),2 and to revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), NO X Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines used to Generate Electricity, 3 will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or standard) or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Georgia's SIP revision also includes measures to offset the emissions increases expected from the changes to these rules. The aforementioned rules and offset measures are described in Section V, below. Additionally, this rulemaking is proposing to approve structural changes to the NOX Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines Rule included in a SIP revision submitted by GA EPD on September 26, 2006.

On November 16, 1991, EPA designated and classified the following counties in Georgia, either in their entirety or portions thereof, as a serious ozone nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area”): Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Paulding, and Rockdale. The designations were based on the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area's design values for the 1987-1989 three-year period.

Among the requirements applicable to the nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS was the requirement to meet certain volatility standards (known as Reid Vapor Pressure or RVP) for gasoline sold commercially. See 55 FR 23658 (June 11, 1990). As discussed in section III, below, a Federal 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) RVP requirement first applied to the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area during the high ozone season (June 1 to September 15) given its status as a serious nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Subsequently, in order to comply with the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, Georgia opted to implement the Georgia Fuel Rule, which requires the sale of low sulfur, 7.0 RVP gasoline in the 45-county Georgia Fuel Area during the high ozone season. EPA incorporated the Georgia Fuel Rule into the Georgia SIP on July 19, 2004. See 69 FR 33862 (June 17, 2004).

Because the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS by November 15, 1999, EPA issued a final rulemaking action on September 26, 2003, to reclassify or “bump up,” the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area to a severe ozone nonattainment area. This reclassification became effective on January 1, 2004. See 68 FR 55469.

Subsequently, on February 1, 2005, GA EPD submitted to EPA a request to redesignate the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area to attainment along with an associated maintenance plan. This request was based on three years of ambient data (2002, 2003, and 2004) showing no violation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA approved the plan and redesignation request effective June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34660) (June 15, 2005). Georgia's 1-hour ozone redesignation request did not include a request to remove the Georgia Fuel Rule from the SIP nor a request to relax the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement for the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area.4

On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated the following 20 counties as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area”): Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, and Walton. EPA reclassified the Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area as a moderate ozone nonattainment area on March 6, 2008 (73 FR 12013), when the Area failed to attain the NAAQS by the attainment date of June 15, 2007. As a result of the reclassification, the new attainment date for the area was June 15, 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA approved a one-year extension to the attainment date for the Atlanta 1997 8-hour Ozone Area from June 15, 2010, to June 15, 2011. See 75 FR 73969. The Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area subsequently attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by June 15, 2011. On March 7, 2012 (77 FR 13491), EPA determined that the Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, and on December 2, 2013, redesignated the Area to attainment. See 78 FR 72040. Georgia's redesignation request for the Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area did not include a request to remove the Georgia Fuel Rule from the SIP nor a request to relax the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement.

On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088), EPA published a final rule designating the following 15 counties as a marginal ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone Area”): Bartow, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Paulding, and Rockdale.

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) can be emitted directly or formed secondarily in the atmosphere. The main precursors of secondary PM2.5 are sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), ammonia, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). See 72 FR 20586 at 20589 (April 25, 2007). Sulfates are a type of secondary particle formed from SO2 emissions of power plants and industrial facilities. Nitrates, another common type of secondary particle, are formed from NOX emissions of power plants, automobiles, and other combustion sources.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the first air quality standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated primary and secondary annual standards at a level of 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same rulemaking, EPA promulgated primary and secondary 24-hour standards of 65 μg/m3, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. On October 17, 2006, EPA retained the annual average NAAQS at 15 μg/m3 but revised the 24-hour NAAQS to 35 μg/m3, based again on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. See 71 FR 61144. Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the primary and secondary 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS are attained when the annual arithmetic mean concentration, as determined in accordance with 40 CFR part 50, Appendix N, is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3 at all relevant monitoring sites in the subject area over a 3-year period.

On January 5, 2005, and supplemented on April 14, 2005, EPA designated the following counties as a nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS (hereinafter referred to as the “Atlanta 1997 PM2.5 Area”): Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, DeKalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding, Walton, and portions of Heard and Putnam Counties in Georgia. See 70 FR 944 and 70 FR 19844, respectively. On November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated designations for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS established in 2006, designating the counties in the Atlanta 1997 PM2.5 Area as unclassifiable/attainment for this NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688. EPA did not promulgate designations for the 2006 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS because that NAAQS was essentially identical to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The November 13, 2009, action clarified that all counties in the Atlanta 1997 PM2.5 Area were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS through the designations promulgated on January 5, 2005.

On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline nationwide had become increasingly volatile, causing an increase in evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment. Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as VOC, are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to ground-level ozone can reduce lung function (thereby aggravating asthma or other respiratory conditions), increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under section 211(c) of CAA, EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868), that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the high ozone season. These regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program, which was designed to reduce the volatility of commercial gasoline during the summer ozone control season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0 psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the State, the month, and the area's initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone NAAQS during the high ozone season).

The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section, 211(h), to address fuel volatility. Section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone season. Section 211(h) prohibits EPA from establishing a volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area, except that EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.

On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), EPA modified the Phase II volatility regulations to be consistent with section 211(h) of the CAA. The modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above 9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, beginning in 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658).

As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility controls rule and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate changes to EPA's volatility program that they believe will enhance local air quality and/or increase the economic efficiency of the program within the statutory limits. In those rulemakings, EPA explained that the governor of a state may petition EPA to set a volatility standard less stringent than 7.8 psi for some month or months in a nonattainment area. The petition must demonstrate such a change is appropriate because of a particular local economic impact and that sufficient alternative programs are available to achieve attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. A current listing of the RVP requirements for states can be found on EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/standards.htm.

At this time, Georgia is not requesting a relaxation or removal of the Federal 7.8 psi RVP requirement that applies in the original 13-county Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area; rather, Georgia is requesting a removal of the Georgia Fuel Rule that applies a more stringent low sulfur, 7.0 psi RVP requirement in the 45-county Georgia Fuel Area. There is a separate process, not contemplated through today's proposed action, to remove Federal RVP requirements.

The State must demonstrate that the requested changes to the Georgia SIP satisfy section 110(l) of the CAA. Section 110(l) requires that a revision to the SIP not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. EPA's criterion for determining the approvability of Georgia's SIP revisions is whether the noninterference demonstration associated with the relaxation request satisfies section 110(l).

EPA evaluates each section 110(l) noninterference demonstration on a case-by-case basis considering the circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as applying to SIP revisions for all areas of the country, whether attainment, nonattainment, unclassifiable, or maintenance for one or more of the six criteria pollutants. EPA also interprets section 110(l) to require a demonstration addressing all criteria pollutants whose emissions and/or ambient concentrations may change as a result of the SIP revision. The degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS varies depending on the nature of the emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. GA EPD's analysis focuses on emissions of NOX and VOC because these are the pollutants affected by Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb).5 As discussed in more detail below, GA EPD opted to obtain NOX reductions to offset the estimated emissions increases in NOX and VOC (as a NOX equivalent) from the aforementioned changes to Georgia SIP.6

In the absence of an attainment demonstration, to demonstrate no interference with any applicable NAAQS or requirement of the CAA under section 110(l), EPA believes it is appropriate to allow states to substitute equivalent emissions reductions to compensate for any change to a SIP-approved program, as long as actual emissions in the air are not increased. “Equivalent” emissions reductions are reductions that are equal to or greater than those reductions achieved by the control measure approved in the SIP. To show that compensating emissions reductions are equivalent, adequate justification must be provided. The compensating, equivalent reductions must represent actual emissions reductions achieved in a contemporaneous time frame to the change of the existing SIP control measure in order to preserve the status quo level of emission in the air. If the status quo is preserved, noninterference is demonstrated. In addition to being contemporaneous, the equivalent emissions reductions must also be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, and surplus.

As discussed above, Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision contains a section 110(l) noninterference demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), and to revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. To support this demonstration, Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision includes measures to offset the emissions increases expected from the changes to these rules. EPA's analysis of Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision pursuant to section 110(l) is provided below. EPA notes that the proposed changes to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) in Georgia's September 26, 2006, SIP submission are structural in nature and therefore do not impact emissions.

The Georgia Fuel Rule was implemented for 45 counties (inclusive of the 20-county Atlanta 1997 8-Hour Ozone Area, the 15-county Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone Area, and additional counties that are designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the relevant ozone NAAQS). This Rule requires the sale of gasoline, also known as Georgia Gas, in the Georgia Fuel Area during the high ozone season that is specially formulated to contain low sulfur, which provides NOX reductions, and an RVP not to exceed 7.0 psi. Georgia's noninterference analysis utilized EPA's 2010b Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emission modeling system to estimate mobile source emissions increases associated with the removal of the Georgia Fuel Rule from the SIP.7 The change to 7.8 RVP fuel in the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area and to 9.0 psi RVP fuel for the remainder of the Georgia Fuel Area is estimated to increase daily mobile source VOC and NOX emissions by approximately 4.61 tons and 1.66 tons, respectively, in the Georgia Fuel Area during the 2015 high ozone season.8 GA EPD converted the VOC emissions increase to a NOX equivalent using the ozone sensitivity analysis discussed in Section V.d and calculated a total NOX emissions increase (direct NOX and equivalent NOX) of 200.43 tons during the high ozone season.

Georgia's Consumer and Commercial Products Rule restricts the sale of windshield wiper fluid to no more than eight percent VOC content in the Atlanta 1-Hour Ozone Area. In its technical demonstration, the State estimated that increasing the VOC content from eight percent to 35 percent yields an increase daily VOC emissions by approximately 0.17 ton per day (tpd). Although Georgia notes that the washer fluid used in the Southeast typically has a VOC content of between eight to ten percent in the summer and 30 percent in the winter, it used the 35 percent VOC content limit for automotive windshield washer fluid in 40 CFR part 59, subpart C. Georgia estimated daily VOC emissions using 2010 census data and the EPA per-person usage factor for windshield washer fluid.9 GA EPD then subtracted the VOC emissions associated with 8 percent VOC content washer fluid from the VOC emissions associated with 35 percent VOC content washer fluid to calculate the emission increase. GA EPD converted the resulting 0.17 tpd VOC increase to a NOX equivalent using the ozone sensitivity analysis discussed in Section V.d, below. Using this sensitivity analysis, GA EPD concluded that the 0.17 tpd VOC increase equates to a 0.0079 tpd increase in NOX emissions, or 1.92 tons of NOX during the ozone season.10

Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) reduces emissions from stationary, peak performing engines that tend to operate during high electricity demand days in the 45-county Georgia Fuel Area. The State enacted this rule as an ozone control measure, and it limits the amount of NOX output from stationary gas turbines and stationary engines with nameplate capacity greater than or equal to 100 kilowatts and less than or equal to 25 megawatts of capacity from May 1 through September 30 of each year. The rule currently incorporated into the SIP exempts emergency standby stationary gas turbines and stationary engines, defined as any stationary gas turbine or stationary engine that operates only when electric power from the local utility is not available and which operates less than 200 hours per year, from the rule's requirements. The September 26, 2006, SIP revision would make a structural change to the SIP-approved version of the regulation, pulling the emergency engine exemption into a new paragraph (Paragraph 7) and limiting the exemption to the emission limits in Paragraph 1 of the rule.

Emergency generators at data centers are subject to the exemption but have different operational needs, mainly the need for an uninterruptible power supply in the event of outages, than emergency generators at other facilities. Data centers are equipped with uninterruptable power supplies, and during a power outage, the data centers receive power from these power supplies and not from the emergency generators. These generators operate only when the uninterruptable power supplies fail or become unreliable and need to be operated for routine testing and maintenance to ensure reliability. Therefore, the State's February 5, 2015, submission would modify the rule to exempt stationary engines at data centers from the rule's NOX emission limits provided that the engines operate for less than 500 hours per year and only for routine testing and maintenance, when electric power from the local utility is not available, or during internal system failures. The rule change would also limit routine testing and maintenance of these engines during the high ozone season to the hours of 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. to reduce the possibility of ozone formation due to these emissions. Ground-level ozone is formed primarily from photochemical reactions between two major classes of air pollutants, VOC and NOX. These reactions have traditionally been viewed as depending upon the presence of heat and sunlight, resulting in higher ambient ozone concentrations in summer months. Given the nature of the exempted engines and the conditions necessary to qualify for the exemptions, any emissions increase is likely negligible.

As discussed above, the State must demonstrate that any offset measures result in equivalent or greater emissions reductions that are permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, surplus, and contemporaneous. GA EPD used information provided by the SouthEastern Modeling, Analysis and Planning (SEMAP) 11 project to examine the sensitivity of daily ozone concentrations to reductions in NOX and VOC emissions at ten ozone monitors in the Atlanta 2008 8-Hour Ozone Area. The State then used the resulting average sensitivities for NOX and VOC from the SEMAP project and the estimated VOC emissions increases identified above to calculate NOX equivalent emissions increases.12 Georgia added these NOX equivalent emissions increases to the projected NOX emissions increases associated with the removal of the Georgia Fuel Rule and Consumer and Commercial Products Rule from the SIP to determine the amount of NOX emissions reductions that would be needed from offset measures to maintain the status quo in air quality. Table 1, below, identifies these estimated total NOX equivalent emissions increases.

Georgia's SIP revision includes two offset measures—school bus replacements and rail locomotive conversions—to obtain the necessary emissions reductions. The State's school bus replacement program permanently replaced 60 older school buses (model years between 1994 to 2003) in DeKalb, Fayette, Henry, and Madison Counties with the newer and cleaner 2015 model year buses and was not necessary to satisfy any federal requirement. In the February 5, 2015, SIP submittal, GA EPD calculated the bus replacement NOX emissions reductions using the Diesel Emissions Quantifier (DEQ). EPA requested that the State recalculate these emissions reductions because the DEQ is not an appropriate methodology to calculate emissions reductions for incorporation into a SIP. On April 7, 2015, GA EPD submitted a correction to the school bus NOX emissions calculation using EPA certification data and school bus mileage.13 GA EPD quantified the NOX reductions by taking the difference in the emissions of the old and new buses, as summarized in Appendix C of the April 7, 2015 correction. The school bus replacement was completed in October 2014. The State has not previously relied on these emissions reductions to satisfy any CAA requirement.

The Locomotive Conversion Program consists of two components: (1) The conversion of 28 locomotives from Norfolk Southern Railway Company and CSX Transportation to EPA Tier 3 switch duty, Tier 3 Line-Haul, and Tier 2 Switch emissions standards,14 and (2) the installation of an electric layover system at the Norfolk Southern Atlanta Terminal. The contracts have been executed between GA EPD and Norfolk Southern Railway, and GA EPD and CSX Transportation; the scopes of work from these contracts are being proposed for incorporation into the Georgia SIP and will become federally enforceable once approved into the SIP.15 The converted low-emissions locomotives are required in the assigned operating areas within the Georgia Fuel Area.16 GA EPD quantified the NOX emissions reductions using estimated fuel usage of 1,000 gallons per week per traditional switcher locomotives and subtracting it from the manufacturer's estimated fuel usage of the newly converted locomotives. The locomotive retrofits will be phased in over a period from November 2014 through August 2016. To date, one locomotive conversion has been completed, 22 locomotives are in various phases of the conversions process and are scheduled to be converted by the end of 2015, and the remaining five locomotives will start the conversion process by October 2015. The locomotive conversion project also includes the installation of an electric layover heating system for locomotives. The electric layover heating system will reduce idle time, and therefore reduce emissions, by providing electric heat and battery charge to the locomotive engines. The State has not previously relied on the emissions reductions from the Locomotive Conversion Program to satisfy any CAA requirement.

Table 2, below, shows the expected emissions reductions from the school bus replacement and locomotive conversion offset measures.

The estimated NOX emissions reductions associated with the school bus replacement and locomotive retrofit measures are more than sufficient to offset the emissions increases expected to result from modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb) and to revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm).

Georgia's SIP revision includes a contingency offset measure in the event that the locomotive conversion program cannot be fully completed. The contingency measure would obtain NOX offsets from the permanent retirement of Unit 3 at Georgia Power's Eugene A. Yates Steam-Electric Generating Plant (hereinafter referred to as “Power Plant Yates”), located in Newnan, Georgia, in the amount of any shortfall due to incomplete implementation of the locomotive conversion program. Plant Yates is located 45 miles from Atlanta, Georgia, in Coweta County within the Georgia Fuel Area. There are a total of seven units at Plant Yates; Units 6 and 7 were converted to operate at 100 percent natural gas and Units 1 thru 5 retired in April 2015 per Condition 3.2.6 of Title V permit amendment 4911-077-0001-V-03-5, issued August 29, 2014. The shutdown of the five units will result in a decrease in NOX emissions. EPA is proposing to allow GA EPD to use the permanent retirement of Unit 3 and the associated NOX emissions reductions as a contingency measure for NOX offsets. The shutdown of Yates Unit 3 is not necessary to satisfy any CAA requirement, and the resulting emissions reductions have not been relied upon in any attainment plan or demonstration or credited in any RFP demonstration.

Georgia quantified the amount of emissions reductions available as offsets using the baseline approach in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S established to determine the offsets available for the construction of a new major source or major modification in a nonattainment area. Georgia calculated the baseline emissions using 2012 and 2013 actual annual operating hours obtained from the EPA's Clean Air Markets Data Web site. GA EPD calculated the monthly NOX emissions for calendar year 2012 and 2013 to obtain the annual average NOX baseline emissions of 688 tons and 632 tons for 2012 and 2013, respectively, resulting in an average baseline for 2012-2013 of 660 tons of NOX.17 Upon a determination that sufficient offsets will not be achieved within one year from the date of EPA's final action on Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP submission, GA EPD will revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)(f), Clean Air Interstate Rule NOX Annual Trading Program, for the purposes of retiring or reducing the appropriate New Source Set Asides and submit that rule revision, along with the Title V permit condition that requires the shutdown of Unit 3, as a SIP revision. GA EPD will use the necessary substitute emissions reductions to replace any emissions shortfall in the event the locomotive conversions are not completed. EPA has initially determined that the State has successfully demonstrated that 660 tons of NOX offset is available through implementation of the contingency measure in the event the locomotive conversion program is not completed and that the measures will be permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, contemporaneous, surplus, and equivalent.

EPA believes that the emissions reductions from the offset measures included in the SIP revision are greater than those needed to maintain the status quo in air quality and are permanent, enforceable, quantifiable, surplus, contemporaneous and equivalent. Therefore, EPA has preliminarily determined that the SIP revision adequately demonstrates that modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), and to revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), NOX Emissions from Stationary Gas Turbines and Stationary Engines used to Generate Electricity. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

EPA is proposing to approve the State of Georgia's February 5, 2015, SIP revision, including the section 110(l) demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb) and revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA is also proposing to approve a structural change to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm) submitted on September 26, 2006. EPA has preliminarily determined that the removal of Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), and the revision to Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), are approvable because the SIP revision includes offset measures that provide emissions reductions that are greater than the estimated emissions increases associated with the changes to the aforementioned rules. Furthermore, in the event that the locomotive conversion program is not fully completed, the SIP revision includes a contingency measure to ensure that all necessary offsets are secured. Approval of the State's February 5, 2015, SIP revision would modify the SIP to remove Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(2)(aaa) and 391-3-1-.02(2)(bbb), revise Georgia Rule 391-3-1-.02(2)(mmm), and include the school bus replacement and locomotive conversion program offset measures as well as the offset contingency provisions.

Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submittal 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 that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not propose to impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, 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);

• 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, October 7, 1999);

• is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.