Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 41439-41443 [2014-16553]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888; FRL–9913–59–
Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois,
Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin;
Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is taking final action to
approve elements of state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions
from Michigan and Wisconsin while
taking final action to approve some
elements and disapprove other elements
of SIP submissions from Illinois and
Minnesota regarding the infrastructure
requirements of section 110 of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(2008 Pb NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each
state’s air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state’s
responsibilities under the CAA. Illinois
and Minnesota already administer
federally promulgated regulations that
address the final disapprovals described
in today’s rulemaking. Therefore, these
two states are not obligated to submit
new or additional regulations to EPA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
August 15, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888. 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., Confidential Business Information
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 U.S. 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 Andy Chang at (312)
886–0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:14 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258,
chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
proposed rulemaking associated with
this final action was published on May
13, 2014, and EPA received two
comment letters during the comment
period, which ended on June 12, 2014.
One of the letters supported EPA’s
proposed actions, and the concerns
raised in the other letter, as well as
EPA’s response, will be addressed in
this final action.
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
B. Why did the states make these SIP
submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
I. What is the background of these SIP
submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this
rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses
submissions from the following states in
EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (Illinois EPA);
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
(WDNR). The states submitted their
2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIPs on
the following dates: Illinois—December
31, 2012; Michigan—April 3, 2012, and
supplemented on August 9, 2013, and
September 19, 2013; Minnesota—June
19, 2012; and, Wisconsin—July 26,
2012.
B. Why did the states make these SIP
submissions?
Under sections 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 Pb NAAQS.
These submissions must contain any
revisions needed for meeting the
applicable SIP requirements of section
110(a)(2), or certifications that their
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41439
existing SIPs for Pb and ozone 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 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007
Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA
issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.51 NAAQS
entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements
Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo),
followed by the October 14, 2011,
‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP
Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently,
EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13,
2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions
referenced in this rulemaking pertain to
the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily address
the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that
the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) program is
comprehensive and non-NAAQS
specific, a narrow evaluation of other
NAAQS, such as the 1997 ozone and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be included in
the appropriate sections.
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting upon the SIP
submissions from Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin that address
the infrastructure requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the
2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for
states to make a SIP submission of this
type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 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
1 PM
2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’
particles.
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41440
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(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 ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D of title I of the
CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) permit
program submissions to address the
permit requirements of CAA, title I, part
D.
As described in EPA’s May 13, 2014,
proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR 27241),
this rulemaking will not cover three
substantive areas that are not integral to
acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions during
periods of start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction at sources, that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(‘‘SSM’’); (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 process or
without requiring further approval by
EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(collectively referred to as ‘‘director’s
discretion’’); 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
rulemaking. Additionally, the history,
interpretation, and rationale related to
infrastructure SIP requirements can be
found in our 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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
II. What is our response to comments
received on the proposed rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA’s
proposed actions with respect to each
state’s satisfaction of the infrastructure
SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb
NAAQS closed on June 12, 2014. EPA
received two comment letters, one of
which was in support of our proposed
actions. A synopsis of the adverse
comments contained in the other letter,
as well as EPA’s response, is discussed
below.
Comment: The commenter noted that
EPA did not address Wisconsin’s
compliance with the requirements to
incorporate PM2.5 increments 2 into its
SIP. The commenter asserted that
because Wisconsin has failed to
incorporate the increments, EPA needs
to disapprove the applicable
infrastructure SIP PSD sub-element for
the PM2.5 increments, and begin a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
clock.
Response: In EPA’s May 13, 2014,
proposed rulemaking, we stated that we
were not taking action on Wisconsin’s
satisfaction of the applicable PSD
requirements, e.g., incorporating the
PM2.5 increments found in section
110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), or
section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 79 FR 27241 at
27246). Instead, EPA stated that it
would address Wisconsin’s compliance
with these requirements in a separate
rulemaking. In other words, this
comment is not germane to today’s
rulemaking.
III. What action is EPA taking?
For the reasons discussed in our May
13, 2014, proposed rulemaking and in
the above response to a public
comment, EPA is taking final action to
approve, as proposed, most elements of
submissions from Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying
that their current SIPs are sufficient to
meet the required infrastructure
elements under sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are also
taking final action to disapprove some
elements of submissions from Illinois
and Minnesota related to each state’s
PSD program. As described in the
proposed rulemaking, both of these
states already administer Federally
promulgated PSD regulations through
delegation, and therefore, no practical
effect is associated with today’s final
2 The PM
2.5 increments and associated
implementation rules in question arise from EPA’s
October 20, 2010, final rule for the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)—
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)’’.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
disapproval of those elements (see 79
FR 27241 at 27256–27257).
To clarify, EPA is taking final action
to disapprove the infrastructure SIP
submissions from Illinois and
Minnesota with respect to certain PSD
requirements including: (i) Provisions
that adequate address the 2008 Pb
NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification
of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a
precursor to ozone consistent with the
‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to
Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990
Amendments Relating to New Source
Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon
Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for
Reformulated Gasoline’’; (iii) the
explicit identification of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) and NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and
the significant emissions rates for direct
PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its
precursors), and the regulation of PM2.5
and PM10 3 condensables, consistent
with the requirements of the final rule
on the ‘‘Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)’’; (iv) the PM2.5
increments and associated
implementation rules consistent with
the final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration
(SMC)’’; and, (v) permitting of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting sources
at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds.
EPA is also taking final action to
disapprove the infrastructure SIP
submissions from Illinois and
Minnesota with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
related to interstate pollution
abatement. Specifically, this section
requires states with PSD programs have
provisions requiring a new or modified
source to notify neighboring states of the
potential impacts from the source,
consistent with the requirements of
section 126(a).
However, Illinois and Minnesota have
no further obligations to EPA because
Federally promulgated rules,
promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in
effect in each of these states. EPA has
delegated the authority to Illinois and
Minnesota to administer these rules,
which include provisions related to PSD
and interstate pollution abatement. This
3 PM
10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as
‘‘coarse’’ particles.
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
final disapproval for Illinois and
Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP
requirements will not result in sanctions
under section 179(a), nor will it obligate
EPA to promulgate a FIP within two
years of final action if the states do not
submit revisions to their PSD SIPs
addressing these deficiencies. Instead,
Illinois and Minnesota are already
subject to the Federally promulgated
PSD regulations, and both states
administer these regulations via EPA’s
delegated authority.
Element
In the above table, the key is as
follows:
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
A .......
NA ....
D .......
+ .......
* ........
** .......
Approve.
No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
Disapprove.
Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
Federally promulgated rules in place.
Previously discussed in element (C).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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 Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
A
A
A
D,*
D,*
D,*
D,*
D,*
A
**
A
D,*
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
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
PO 00000
EPA’s final actions for each state’s
satisfaction of infrastructure SIP
requirements, by element of section
110(a)(2) are contained in the table
below.
IL
(A): Emission limits and other control measures .....................................................................
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system ..............................................................
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures .......................................................................................
(C)2: PSD program for Pb .......................................................................................................
(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD ...........................................................................
(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD .............................................
(C)5: PM2.5 Increments ............................................................................................................
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations ..............................................................
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS ..............................
(D)2: PSD .................................................................................................................................
(D)3: Visibility Protection ..........................................................................................................
(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement .......................................................................................
(D)5: International Pollution Abatement ...................................................................................
(E): Adequate resources ..........................................................................................................
(E): State boards ......................................................................................................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system ................................................................................
(G): Emergency power .............................................................................................................
(H): Future SIP revisions .........................................................................................................
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D ..................................................
(J)1: Consultation with government officials ............................................................................
(J)2: Public notification .............................................................................................................
(J)3: PSD .................................................................................................................................
(J)4: Visibility protection ...........................................................................................................
(K): Air quality modeling and data ...........................................................................................
(L): Permitting fees ..................................................................................................................
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities ..................................................
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41441
MI
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
**
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
MN
A
A
A
D,*
D,*
D,*
D,*
D,*
A
**
A
D,*
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
WI
A
A
A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
**
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
NA
A
A
**
+
A
A
A
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt
Tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
41442
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by September 15,
2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of
this final rule does not affect the finality
of this action for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time
within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not
postpone the effectiveness of such rule
or action. This action may not be
challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2)).
Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.745 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 52.745 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
3. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
lead (Pb) NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
■
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
certified that the State has satisfied the
infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J)
through (M) for the 2008 lead (Pb)
NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on the
state board requirements of (E)(ii).
Although EPA is disapproving portions
of Illinois’ submission addressing the
prevention of significant deterioration,
Illinois continues to implement the
Federally promulgated rules for this
purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J).
*
§ 52.1170
*
*
*
*
(d) Approval and Disapproval—In a
December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2008 lead (Pb)
NAAQS.
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
*
Statewide ..........
4. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph
(e) is amended by adding an entry at the
end of the table for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2)
■
State submittal
date
*
4/3/2012, 8/9/
213.
EPA Approval date
*
7/16/2014, [INSERT
Federal Register CITATION].
Comments
*
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the state board requirements of (E)(ii).
We will address these requirements in a separate action.
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008
lead (Pb) NAAQS’’ to read as follows:
§ 52.1220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory
SIP provision
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 2008 lead (Pb)
NAAQS.
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
State submittal
date/effective
date
*
Statewide ..........
*
6/19/2012 (submittal date).
5. Section 52.2591 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
■
EPA Approved date
*
7/16/2014, [INSERT
Federal Register CITATION].
Comments
*
§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Approval—In a July 26, 2012,
submittal, Wisconsin certified that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A),(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G),
(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the state board requirements of (E)(ii).
We will address these requirements in a separate action. Although EPA is disapproving portions of Minnesota’s submission addressing the
prevention of significant deterioration, Minnesota
continues to implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to
section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J).
State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
through (H), and (J) through (M) for the
2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. We are not
taking action on the prevention of
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
information about the docket available
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois
Rossi, Registration Division (7505P),
Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460–0001; telephone number:
(703) 305–7090; email address:
RDFNotices@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
40 CFR Part 180
I. General Information
[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590; FRL–9911–54]
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by
this action if you are an agricultural
producer, food manufacturer, or
pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is
not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers
determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected
entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code
112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code
311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS
code 32532).
significant deterioration requirements
related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
and (J), and the state board requirements
of (E)(ii). We will address these
requirements in a separate action.
[FR Doc. 2014–16553 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Coco alkyl dimethyl amines;
Exemption From the Requirement of a
Tolerance
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This regulation establishes an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of coco alkyl
dimethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788–
93–0) when used as an inert ingredient
(emulsifier) in pesticide formulations
applied to crops preharvest at a
concentration not to exceed 0.5% by
weight. Technology Sciences Group
Inc., 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20036, submitted a
petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
requesting establishment of an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of coco
alkyl dimethyl amines.
DATES: This regulation is effective July
16, 2014. Objections and requests for
hearings must be received on or before
September 15, 2014, and must be filed
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also
Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION).
SUMMARY:
The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the Office of Pesticide Programs
Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West
Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and
the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review
the visitor instructions and additional
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:23 Jul 15, 2014
Jkt 232001
B. How can I get electronic access to
other related information?
You may access a frequently updated
electronic version of 40 CFR part 180
through the Government Printing
Office’s e-CFR site at https://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/
40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test
guidelines referenced in this document
electronically, please go to https://
www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test
Methods and Guidelines.’’
C. How can I file an objection or hearing
request?
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21
U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation
and may also request a hearing on those
objections. You must file your objection
or request a hearing on this regulation
in accordance with the instructions
provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must
identify docket ID number EPA–HQ–
OPP–2013–0590 in the subject line on
the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing
must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or
before September 15, 2014. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40
CFR 178.25(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41443
In addition to filing an objection or
hearing request with the Hearing Clerk
as described in 40 CFR part 178, please
submit a copy of the filing (excluding
any Confidential Business Information
(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket.
Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be
disclosed publicly by EPA without prior
notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your
objection or hearing request, identified
by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP–
2013–0590, by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be CBI or
other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/
DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.
• Hand Delivery: To make special
arrangements for hand delivery or
delivery of boxed information, please
follow the instructions at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
Additional instructions on
commenting or visiting the docket,
along with more information about
dockets generally, is available at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. Petition for Exemption
In the Federal Register of October 25,
2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL–9901–96),
EPA issued a document pursuant to
FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the filing of a pesticide
petition (PP IN–10622) by Technology
Sciences Group Inc., 1150 18th St. NW.,
Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920
be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of coco alkyl
dimethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788–
93–0) when used as an inert ingredient
(emulsifier) in pesticide formulations
applied to crops preharvest at a
concentration not to exceed 0.5% by
weight.
That document referenced a summary
of the petition prepared by Technology
Sciences Group Inc., the petitioner,
which is available in the docket,
https://www.regulations.gov. There were
no comments received in response to
the notice of filing.
Based upon review of the data
supporting the petition, EPA has
approved of the use of coco alkyl
dimethyl amines at a maximum
concentration not to exceed 0.5% by
weight in the final end-use formulation.
This limitation is based on the Agency’s
E:\FR\FM\16JYR1.SGM
16JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41439-41443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16553]
[[Page 41439]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888; FRL-9913-59-Region 5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP
Requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve elements of state implementation plan (SIP)
submissions from Michigan and Wisconsin while taking final action to
approve some elements and disapprove other elements of SIP submissions
from Illinois and Minnesota regarding the infrastructure requirements
of section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (2008 Pb NAAQS). The infrastructure
requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of
each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the
state's responsibilities under the CAA. Illinois and Minnesota already
administer federally promulgated regulations that address the final
disapprovals described in today's rulemaking. Therefore, these two
states are not obligated to submit new or additional regulations to
EPA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on August 15, 2014.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0888. 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., Confidential Business
Information 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 U.S. 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 Andy Chang at (312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-0258, chang.andy@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rulemaking associated with this
final action was published on May 13, 2014, and EPA received two
comment letters during the comment period, which ended on June 12,
2014. One of the letters supported EPA's proposed actions, and the
concerns raised in the other letter, as well as EPA's response, will be
addressed in this final action.
Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged
as follows:
I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.
I. What is the background of these SIP submissions?
A. What state SIP submissions does this rulemaking address?
This rulemaking addresses submissions from the following states in
EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA);
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources (WDNR). The states submitted their 2008 Pb NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs on the following dates: Illinois--December 31,
2012; Michigan--April 3, 2012, and supplemented on August 9, 2013, and
September 19, 2013; Minnesota--June 19, 2012; and, Wisconsin--July 26,
2012.
B. Why did the states make these SIP submissions?
Under sections 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 Pb 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 Pb and ozone 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 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2007 Memo).
On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an additional guidance document
pertaining to the 2006 PM2.5\1\ NAAQS entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-
Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2009 Memo), followed by the October 14, 2011,
``Guidance on infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS)'' (2011 Memo). Most recently, EPA issued ``Guidance
on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)'' on September 13, 2013 (2013 Memo).
The SIP submissions referenced in this rulemaking pertain to the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily
address the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that the prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) program is comprehensive and non-NAAQS
specific, a narrow evaluation of other NAAQS, such as the 1997 ozone
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be included in the appropriate
sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns
or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ``fine'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
EPA is acting upon the SIP submissions from Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin that address the infrastructure requirements
of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. The
requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out
of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), 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
[[Page 41440]]
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 sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(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 ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
As described in EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR
27241), this rulemaking will not cover three substantive areas that are
not integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(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 process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(collectively referred to as ``director's discretion''); 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 rulemaking. Additionally, the
history, interpretation, and rationale related to infrastructure SIP
requirements can be found in our 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).
II. What is our response to comments received on the proposed
rulemaking?
The public comment period for EPA's proposed actions with respect
to each state's satisfaction of the infrastructure SIP requirements for
the 2008 Pb NAAQS closed on June 12, 2014. EPA received two comment
letters, one of which was in support of our proposed actions. A
synopsis of the adverse comments contained in the other letter, as well
as EPA's response, is discussed below.
Comment: The commenter noted that EPA did not address Wisconsin's
compliance with the requirements to incorporate PM2.5
increments \2\ into its SIP. The commenter asserted that because
Wisconsin has failed to incorporate the increments, EPA needs to
disapprove the applicable infrastructure SIP PSD sub-element for the
PM2.5 increments, and begin a Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) clock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PM2.5 increments and associated
implementation rules in question arise from EPA's October 20, 2010,
final rule for the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: In EPA's May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking, we stated
that we were not taking action on Wisconsin's satisfaction of the
applicable PSD requirements, e.g., incorporating the PM2.5
increments found in section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), or
section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 79 FR 27241 at 27246). Instead, EPA stated
that it would address Wisconsin's compliance with these requirements in
a separate rulemaking. In other words, this comment is not germane to
today's rulemaking.
III. What action is EPA taking?
For the reasons discussed in our May 13, 2014, proposed rulemaking
and in the above response to a public comment, EPA is taking final
action to approve, as proposed, most elements of submissions from
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying that their
current SIPs are sufficient to meet the required infrastructure
elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are
also taking final action to disapprove some elements of submissions
from Illinois and Minnesota related to each state's PSD program. As
described in the proposed rulemaking, both of these states already
administer Federally promulgated PSD regulations through delegation,
and therefore, no practical effect is associated with today's final
disapproval of those elements (see 79 FR 27241 at 27256-27257).
To clarify, EPA is taking final action to disapprove the
infrastructure SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect
to certain PSD requirements including: (i) Provisions that adequate
address the 2008 Pb NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) as a precursor to ozone consistent with
the ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule to Implement Certain Aspects of
the 1990 Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate
Matter, and Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline''; (iii)
the explicit identification of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and
NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and the significant
emissions rates for direct PM2.5, and SO2 and
NOX as its precursors), and the regulation of
PM2.5 and PM10 \3\ condensables, consistent with
the requirements of the final rule on the ``Implementation of the New
Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)''; (iv) the PM2.5 increments
and associated implementation rules consistent with the final rule on
the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments,
Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant Monitoring
Concentration (SMC)''; and, (v) permitting of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emitting sources at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ PM10 refers to particles with diameters between
2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as ``coarse'' particles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is also taking final action to disapprove the infrastructure
SIP submissions from Illinois and Minnesota with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) related to interstate
pollution abatement. Specifically, this section requires states with
PSD programs have provisions requiring a new or modified source to
notify neighboring states of the potential impacts from the source,
consistent with the requirements of section 126(a).
However, Illinois and Minnesota have no further obligations to EPA
because Federally promulgated rules, promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in
effect in each of these states. EPA has delegated the authority to
Illinois and Minnesota to administer these rules, which include
provisions related to PSD and interstate pollution abatement. This
[[Page 41441]]
final disapproval for Illinois and Minnesota for these infrastructure
SIP requirements will not result in sanctions under section 179(a), nor
will it obligate EPA to promulgate a FIP within two years of final
action if the states do not submit revisions to their PSD SIPs
addressing these deficiencies. Instead, Illinois and Minnesota are
already subject to the Federally promulgated PSD regulations, and both
states administer these regulations via EPA's delegated authority.
EPA's final actions for each state's satisfaction of infrastructure
SIP requirements, by element of section 110(a)(2) are contained in the
table below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Element IL MI MN WI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other A A A A
control measures.
(B): Ambient air quality A A A A
monitoring and data system.
(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures A A A A
(C)2: PSD program for Pb......... D,* A D,* NA
(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone D,* A D,* NA
for PSD.
(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and D,* A D,* NA
PM10 condensables for PSD.
(C)5: PM2.5 Increments........... D,* A D,* NA
(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds D,* A D,* NA
in PSD regulations.
(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/ A A A A
interfere with maintenance of
NAAQS.
(D)2: PSD........................ ** ** ** **
(D)3: Visibility Protection...... A A A A
(D)4: Interstate Pollution D,* A D,* A
Abatement.
(D)5: International Pollution A A A A
Abatement.
(E): Adequate resources.......... A A A A
(E): State boards................ NA NA NA NA
(F): Stationary source monitoring A A A A
system.
(G): Emergency power............. A A A A
(H): Future SIP revisions........ A A A A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or NA NA NA NA
plan revisions under part D.
(J)1: Consultation with A A A A
government officials.
(J)2: Public notification........ A A A A
(J)3: PSD........................ ** ** ** **
(J)4: Visibility protection...... + + + +
(K): Air quality modeling and A A A A
data.
(L): Permitting fees............. A A A A
(M): Consultation and A A A A
participation by affected local
entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the above table, the key is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A............................... Approve.
NA.............................. No Action/Separate Rulemaking.
D............................... Disapprove.
+............................... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs.
*............................... Federally promulgated rules in place.
**.............................. Previously discussed in element (C).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
[[Page 41442]]
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 2, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. Section 52.745 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.745 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(d) Approval and Disapproval--In a December 31, 2012, submittal,
Illinois certified that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M)
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on the state
board requirements of (E)(ii). Although EPA is disapproving portions of
Illinois' submission addressing the prevention of significant
deterioration, Illinois continues to implement the Federally
promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J).
0
3. In Sec. 52.1170, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal date EPA Approval Comments
provision nonattainment area date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide........... 4/3/2012, 8/9/213... 7/16/2014, This action
Infrastructure Requirements [INSERT addresses the
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. Federal following CAA
Register elements:
CITATION]. 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We
are not taking
action on the state
board requirements
of (E)(ii). We will
address these
requirements in a
separate action.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
4. In Sec. 52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State submittal date/ EPA Approved Comments
provision nonattainment area effective date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Statewide........... 6/19/2012 (submittal 7/16/2014, This action
Infrastructure Requirements date). [INSERT addresses the
for the 2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. Federal following CAA
Register elements:
CITATION]. 110(a)(2)(A),(B),
(C), (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), (J), (K),
(L), and (M). We
are not taking
action on the state
board requirements
of (E)(ii). We will
address these
requirements in a
separate action.
Although EPA is
disapproving
portions of
Minnesota's
submission
addressing the
prevention of
significant
deterioration,
Minnesota continues
to implement the
Federally
promulgated rules
for this purpose as
they pertain to
section
110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
5. Section 52.2591 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.
* * * * *
(f) Approval--In a July 26, 2012, submittal, Wisconsin certified
that the State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 2008 lead
(Pb) NAAQS. We are not taking action on the prevention of
[[Page 41443]]
significant deterioration requirements related to section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J), and the state board requirements of (E)(ii). We
will address these requirements in a separate action.
[FR Doc. 2014-16553 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
