Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Particulate Matter, 36277-36279 [2014-14831]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules https://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA’s Web site at https://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations Published.’’ PART 38—NATIONAL CEMETERIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 38 U.S.C. 107, 501, 512, 2306, 2402, 2403, 2404, 2408, 2411, 7105. 2. Add § 38.637 to read as follows: Comment Period ■ Although Executive Order 12866 generally requires that agencies afford the public a 60-day comment period, VA has determined that good cause exists to limit the public comment period for this proposed rule to 30 days. This rulemaking is necessary to implement the statutory changes enacted in Public Law 112–260 to increase the availability of benefits for veterans whose remains are unclaimed where sufficient resources are not available for burial expenses. VA must implement the new casket and urn authority in regulation to inform the public of reimbursement amounts, application procedures, and standards for the caskets or urns. These statutory provisions became effective on January 10, 2014, one year after the enactment date of the law. Accordingly, we are providing a 30-day comment period for the public to comment on the proposed rule. § 38.637. Reimbursement for caskets and urns for unclaimed remains of Veterans. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title for this proposed rule are 64.201, National Cemeteries. Signing Authority The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of Veteran Affairs, approved this document on June 13, 2014, for publication. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 38 pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS Administrative practice and procedure, Cemeteries, Veterans. Dated: June 18, 2014. William F. Russo, Deputy Director, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 38 as set forth below: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:46 Jun 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 (a) VA will reimburse any individual or entity for the actual cost of a casket or an urn, purchased by the individual or entity for the burial in a national cemetery of an eligible veteran who died on or after January 10, 2014, for whom VA: (1) Is unable to identify the veteran’s next-of-kin; and (2) Determines that sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn. (b) An individual or entity may request reimbursement from VA under paragraph (a) of this section by completing and submitting VA Form 40–10088, and supporting documentation, in accordance with the instructions on the form. Prior to approving reimbursement VA must find all of the following: (1) The veteran is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery; (2) The individual or entity has certified that they cannot identify the veteran’s next-of-kin, and VA’s records do not identify a next-of-kin; (3) The individual or entity has certified that, to the best of their knowledge, sufficient resources are otherwise unavailable to furnish the casket or urn, and VA’s records do not indicate such resources; (4) The invoice presented by the individual or entity clearly indicates the purchase price of the casket or urn purchased by the individual or entity; and (5) The invoice presented by the individual or entity contains information sufficient for VA to determine, in conjunction with a visual inspection, that the casket or urn meets the following minimum standards: (i) Caskets must be of 20-gauge metal construction, designed for containing human remains, sufficient to contain the remains of the deceased veteran, include a gasketed seal, and include external fixed rails or swing arm handles. (ii) Urns must be of durable plastic construction, with a secure closure to contain the cremated remains, and must be designed for containing cremated human remains. PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 36277 (c) Reimbursement under paragraph (a) of this section will not exceed the average cost of the casket or urn, as determined by VA and published annually in the Federal Register. (d) If, before June 26, 2014, an individual or entity purchased a casket or urn for burial in a VA national cemetery of the remains of a veteran who died after January 10, 2014, and the burial receptacle is not at least a 20gauge metal casket or a durable plastic urn, VA will reimburse the purchase price of the burial receptacle, providing all other criteria in this regulation are met. The reimbursement amount will be subject to the maximum reimbursement amount calculated for 2014. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2306, 2402, 2411) [FR Doc. 2014–14651 Filed 6–25–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320–01–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0002; FRL– 9912–60–Region 5] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Particulate Matter Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. AGENCY: On June 27, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed action on particulate matter rule revisions that Ohio submitted on June 4, 2003. While EPA subsequently took final action with respect to provisions that it proposed to approve, EPA has not taken final action with respect to provisions relating to opacity limitations that EPA proposed to disapprove on June 27, 2005. EPA is evaluating the public comments received in response to the proposed disapproval published on June 27, 2005. EPA believes that events subsequent to the publication of the proposed disapproval and the associated comment period have not altered the criteria for evaluating Ohio’s rule revisions relating to opacity and have not otherwise influenced whether the rule revisions should be disapproved, as proposed. Nevertheless, given the passage of time, EPA is soliciting supplemental comment specifically with respect to whether events subsequent to the prior comment period should alter EPA’s proposed disapproval of Ohio’s June 4, 2003, submission with respect to SIP opacity SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 36278 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules limitations. EPA is not soliciting comments on Ohio’s submission or EPA’s proposed June 27, 2005, action on that submission, except to the extent that events subsequent to the original comment period are relevant to EPA’s evaluation of the submission and EPA’s proposed action. This is not a reopening of the original comment period, but the opening of a supplemental comment period, as described further below. Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2014. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2005–OH–0002, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005– OH–0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS DATES: VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:46 Jun 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–6067, before visiting the Region 5 office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, summerhays.john@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted revisions to particulate matter rules in the EPA approved SIP for the state, in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745–17. These revisions included significant revisions to Ohio’s requirements regarding opacity limits applicable to various sources, reflected in revisions to OAC 3745–17–03. Among other changes, these revisions provided that sources meeting certain criteria, including operating a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) in compliance with pertinent data quality requirements, could opt to demonstrate compliance by showing that the COMS data meet modified opacity limits. The revisions also include various less substantive updates, simplifications, and PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 clarifications in other parts of OAC 3745–17 that are unrelated to the applicable opacity standards. EPA proposed action on these revisions to OAC 3745–17 on June 27, 2005, published at 70 FR 36901. EPA proposed to disapprove the revisions in OAC 3745–17–03, finding that the revisions relaxed applicable opacity requirements without any demonstration pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(l) that the relaxation does not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or satisfaction of other requirements. EPA proposed to approve most of the remaining revisions that Ohio submitted. These remaining revisions were part of a subsequently submitted and subsequently approved set of revisions, and so these remaining revisions are not at issue here. EPA received comments on the June 25, 2007, proposal from several commenters. On September 10, 2009, Ohio submitted additional rule revisions expressly intended to consolidate its air quality standards. These rule revisions included an update to the cross reference in OAC 3745–17–03(A), intended to clarify that the ambient monitoring methods given in OAC 3745–17–01 were to be used to assess attainment with air quality standards in a rule relocated from OAC 3745–17–02 to OAC 3745–25–02. EPA published direct final action approving the air quality standards-related revisions on October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572. Unfortunately, EPA’s October 2010 action on Ohio’s September 2009 submission (addressing the state’s air quality standards rules) erroneously appeared to suggest that EPA was approving the entirety of the substantive revisions to OAC 3745–17–03, even though the action only addressed the revision to the cross reference in paragraph A and not the other substantive provisions in OAC 3745– 17–03 such as the opacity-related provisions in OAC 3745–17–03(B). Upon finding this error, EPA published action on April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, to correct this error pursuant to its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act. Two parties then objected to this method of correcting the typographical error and requested that EPA address this error pursuant to EPA’s authority under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6). EPA agreed to these requests and published proposed action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) on February 7, 2014, at 79 FR 7412. EPA is currently evaluating comments on the February 2014 E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 123 / Thursday, June 26, 2014 / Proposed Rules proposal and will take final action upon that proposal separately. EPA believes that neither these events nor any other events warrant any alterations in the criteria for evaluation of Ohio’s opacity rules or in the analysis of Ohio’s June 4, 2003, submission. Actions on other parts of OAC Chapter 3745–17 rules and actions pertinent to revision of the cross reference in OAC 3745–17–03(A) and other provisions related to air quality standards are not pertinent to EPA’s proposed disapproval of the revisions to the substantive opacity provisions of OAC 3745–17–03. EPA has not issued any revised guidance or taken other action on issues pertinent to its review of Ohio’s opacity rule revisions. Therefore, EPA believes that no new issues have arisen since its June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval and the associated comment period that warrant consideration before EPA takes final action on these rule revisions. However, EPA is specifically soliciting comment on whether any events subsequent to the comment period on the June 27, 2005, action should have any impact on that proposed disapproval, and if so how those events should influence the appropriate criteria. II. What action is EPA taking? EPA is soliciting comments on whether any events which have occurred, or any policy considerations which have arisen, after the comment period on EPA’s June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval of revisions to Ohio’s opacity rules in OAC 3745–17– 03 should be considered by EPA in evaluating these rule revisions. EPA’s proposed rulemaking of June 27, 2005, solicited comments that could be made at that time and EPA is not soliciting resubmission of prior comments or submission of additional comments that could have been made at that time. EPA is specifically soliciting only comments that could not have been made at the time of its prior proposed rulemaking because they are based upon events or policy considerations that arose subsequent to that comment period. pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and, therefore, is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:46 Jun 25, 2014 Jkt 232001 Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Because this rule proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). Executive Order 13132: Federalism This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. 36279 April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Because it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy action,’’ this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). National Technology Transfer Advancement Act In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: June 10, 2014. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments [FR Doc. 2014–14831 Filed 6–25–14; 8:45 am] This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 41 CFR Part 300–3 [FTR Case 2014–301; Docket No. 2014– 0012, Sequence 1] RIN 3090–AJ44 Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); Terms and Definitions for ‘‘Marriage,’’ ‘‘Spouse,’’ and ‘‘Domestic Partnership’’ Office of Government-wide Policy, General Services Administration (GSA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\26JNP1.SGM 26JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36277-36279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14831]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002; FRL-9912-60-Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Ohio; Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: On June 27, 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed action on particulate matter rule revisions that Ohio 
submitted on June 4, 2003. While EPA subsequently took final action 
with respect to provisions that it proposed to approve, EPA has not 
taken final action with respect to provisions relating to opacity 
limitations that EPA proposed to disapprove on June 27, 2005. EPA is 
evaluating the public comments received in response to the proposed 
disapproval published on June 27, 2005.
    EPA believes that events subsequent to the publication of the 
proposed disapproval and the associated comment period have not altered 
the criteria for evaluating Ohio's rule revisions relating to opacity 
and have not otherwise influenced whether the rule revisions should be 
disapproved, as proposed. Nevertheless, given the passage of time, EPA 
is soliciting supplemental comment specifically with respect to whether 
events subsequent to the prior comment period should alter EPA's 
proposed disapproval of Ohio's June 4, 2003, submission with respect to 
SIP opacity

[[Page 36278]]

limitations. EPA is not soliciting comments on Ohio's submission or 
EPA's proposed June 27, 2005, action on that submission, except to the 
extent that events subsequent to the original comment period are 
relevant to EPA's evaluation of the submission and EPA's proposed 
action. This is not a re-opening of the original comment period, but 
the opening of a supplemental comment period, as described further 
below.

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

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2005-OH-0002, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and 
Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal 
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 
deliveries of boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 
Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2005-OH-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be 
included in the public docket without change and may be made available 
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov 
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' 
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you 
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through 
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured 
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic 
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact 
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you 
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to 
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special 
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or 
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, at (312) 886-6067, before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, 
summerhays.john@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 4, 2003, Ohio submitted revisions to particulate matter 
rules in the EPA approved SIP for the state, in Ohio Administrative 
Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-17. These revisions included significant 
revisions to Ohio's requirements regarding opacity limits applicable to 
various sources, reflected in revisions to OAC 3745-17-03. Among other 
changes, these revisions provided that sources meeting certain 
criteria, including operating a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS) in compliance with pertinent data quality requirements, could 
opt to demonstrate compliance by showing that the COMS data meet 
modified opacity limits. The revisions also include various less 
substantive updates, simplifications, and clarifications in other parts 
of OAC 3745-17 that are unrelated to the applicable opacity standards.
    EPA proposed action on these revisions to OAC 3745-17 on June 27, 
2005, published at 70 FR 36901. EPA proposed to disapprove the 
revisions in OAC 3745-17-03, finding that the revisions relaxed 
applicable opacity requirements without any demonstration pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 110(l) that the relaxation does not interfere 
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or satisfaction of other 
requirements. EPA proposed to approve most of the remaining revisions 
that Ohio submitted. These remaining revisions were part of a 
subsequently submitted and subsequently approved set of revisions, and 
so these remaining revisions are not at issue here. EPA received 
comments on the June 25, 2007, proposal from several commenters.
    On September 10, 2009, Ohio submitted additional rule revisions 
expressly intended to consolidate its air quality standards. These rule 
revisions included an update to the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-
03(A), intended to clarify that the ambient monitoring methods given in 
OAC 3745-17-01 were to be used to assess attainment with air quality 
standards in a rule relocated from OAC 3745-17-02 to OAC 3745-25-02. 
EPA published direct final action approving the air quality standards-
related revisions on October 26, 2010, at 75 FR 65572.
    Unfortunately, EPA's October 2010 action on Ohio's September 2009 
submission (addressing the state's air quality standards rules) 
erroneously appeared to suggest that EPA was approving the entirety of 
the substantive revisions to OAC 3745-17-03, even though the action 
only addressed the revision to the cross reference in paragraph A and 
not the other substantive provisions in OAC 3745-17-03 such as the 
opacity-related provisions in OAC 3745-17-03(B). Upon finding this 
error, EPA published action on April 3, 2013, at 78 FR 19990, to 
correct this error pursuant to its authority under the Administrative 
Procedures Act. Two parties then objected to this method of correcting 
the typographical error and requested that EPA address this error 
pursuant to EPA's authority under Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6). EPA 
agreed to these requests and published proposed action pursuant to 
Clean Air Act section 110(k)(6) on February 7, 2014, at 79 FR 7412. EPA 
is currently evaluating comments on the February 2014

[[Page 36279]]

proposal and will take final action upon that proposal separately.
    EPA believes that neither these events nor any other events warrant 
any alterations in the criteria for evaluation of Ohio's opacity rules 
or in the analysis of Ohio's June 4, 2003, submission. Actions on other 
parts of OAC Chapter 3745-17 rules and actions pertinent to revision of 
the cross reference in OAC 3745-17-03(A) and other provisions related 
to air quality standards are not pertinent to EPA's proposed 
disapproval of the revisions to the substantive opacity provisions of 
OAC 3745-17-03. EPA has not issued any revised guidance or taken other 
action on issues pertinent to its review of Ohio's opacity rule 
revisions. Therefore, EPA believes that no new issues have arisen since 
its June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval and the associated comment 
period that warrant consideration before EPA takes final action on 
these rule revisions. However, EPA is specifically soliciting comment 
on whether any events subsequent to the comment period on the June 27, 
2005, action should have any impact on that proposed disapproval, and 
if so how those events should influence the appropriate criteria.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is soliciting comments on whether any events which have 
occurred, or any policy considerations which have arisen, after the 
comment period on EPA's June 27, 2005, proposed disapproval of 
revisions to Ohio's opacity rules in OAC 3745-17-03 should be 
considered by EPA in evaluating these rule revisions. EPA's proposed 
rulemaking of June 27, 2005, solicited comments that could be made at 
that time and EPA is not soliciting resubmission of prior comments or 
submission of additional comments that could have been made at that 
time. EPA is specifically soliciting only comments that could not have 
been made at the time of its prior proposed rulemaking because they are 
based upon events or policy considerations that arose subsequent to 
that comment period.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is 
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely proposes to disapprove state law as not meeting 
Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to disapprove pre-existing requirements 
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty 
beyond that required by state law, it 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).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to disapprove a state rule, and 
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59 
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to disapprove a state rule.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under 
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action 
is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus 
be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state 
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 10, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-14831 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.