Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 26143 

EXCEPTION: In residential dwelling units, 

other than emergency transportable housing 

units, seats shall not be required in transfer 

type shower compartments provided that 

reinforcement has been installed in walls so 

as to permit the installation of seats 

complying with 608.4. 

* * * * * 

804.3 Kitchen Work Surface. In 

residential dwelling units required to provide 

mobility features complying with 809.2, at 

least one 30 inch (760 mm) wide minimum 

section of counter shall provide a kitchen 

work surface that complies with 804.3. 

EXCEPTION: In emergency transportable 

housing units, a work surface complying 

with 804.3 shall not be required provided 

that the following criteria are met: 

(a) A kitchen table complying with 902 is 

provided within the kitchen; 

(b) An electrical outlet is provided at a 

location within reach of the table; and 

(c) All kitchen countertops are 34 inches 

high maximum. 

* * * * * 

809.1 General. * * * Residential 

dwelling units required to provide mobility 

features shall comply with 809.2. Residential 

dwelling units required to provide 

communication features shall comply with 

809.3. 

* * * * * 

809.2 Residential Dwelling Units with 

Mobility Features. Residential dwelling units 

required to provide mobility features shall 

comply with 809.2 

809.2.1 Accessible Routes. Accessible 

routes complying with Chapter 4 shall be 

provided within residential dwelling units in 

accordance with 809.2.1. 

Exception: * * * 

809.2.1.1 Location. At least one 

accessible route shall connect all spaces and 

elements that are a part of the residential 

dwelling unit. * * * 

809.2.1.2 Floor Surfaces. Within 

emergency transportable housing units, 

carpet shall not be provided on floor 

surfaces. 

* * * * * 

809.2.5 Bedrooms in Emergency 

Transportable Housing Units. Bedrooms in 

emergency transportable housing units shall 

comply with 809.2.5. 

809.2.5.1 Clear Floor Space. A clear floor 

space complying with 305 shall be provided 

on one side of a bed. The clear floor space 

shall be positioned for parallel approach to 

the side of the bed and shall be on an 

accessible route. 

809.2.5.2 Furniture. Where bedrooms are 

less than 70 square feet, furniture supplied 

with the unit shall not overlap the accessible 

route, maneuvering clearances required at 

doors, and turning space. 

809.2.5.3 Lighting Controls. A means to 

control at least one source of bedroom 

lighting from the bed shall be provided. 

809.2.6 Weather Alert Systems. Where 

provided in emergency transportable housing 

units, weather alert systems shall comply 

with 309.1 through 309.3. 

809.3 Residential Dwelling Units with 

Communication Features. Residential 

dwelling units required to provide 

communication features shall comply with 

809.3. 

809.3.1 Alarms. Alarms shall comply and 

809.3.1. The same visible notification 

appliances shall be permitted to provide 

notification of building fire alarm and 

residential dwelling unit smoke alarm 

activation. Visible notification appliances 

used to indicate building fire alarm or 

residential dwelling unit smoke alarm 

activation shall not be used for any other 

purpose within the residential dwelling unit. 

809.3.1.1 Building Fire Alarm System. 

Where a building fire alarm system is 

provided, the system wiring shall be 

extended to a point within the residential 

dwelling unit in the vicinity of the 

residential dwelling unit smoke alarm 

system. Notification appliances provided 

within a residential dwelling unit as part of 

the building fire alarm system shall comply 

with NFPA 72 (1999 or 2002 edition) 

(incorporated by reference, see ‘‘Referenced 

Standards’’ in Chapter 1). 

809.3.1.2 Residential Dwelling Unit 

Smoke Alarms. Residential dwelling unit 

smoke alarms shall provide combination 

smoke alarms and visible notification 

appliances complying with NFPA 72 (1999 or 

2002 edition) (incorporated by reference, see 

‘‘Referenced Standards’’ in Chapter 1). 

Combination smoke alarms and visible 

notification appliances shall be supplied 

with power from one or more power sources 

as follows: 

(a) A commercial light and power source 

along with a secondary power source; or 

(b) A non-commercial alternating current 

(ac) power source along with a secondary 

power source. 

809.3.1.3 Activation. All visible 

notification appliances within the residential 

dwelling unit providing notification of a 

building fire alarm shall be activated upon 

activation of the building fire alarm in the 

portion of the building containing the 

residential dwelling unit. All combination 

smoke alarms and visible notification 

appliances within the residential dwelling 

unit shall be activated upon smoke detection. 

809.3.2 Residential Dwelling Unit 

Primary Entrance. Communication features 

shall be provided at the residential dwelling 

unit primary entrance and shall comply with 

809.3.2. 

* * * * * 

809.3.4 Weather Alert Systems. Where 

provided in emergency transportable housing 

units, weather alert systems shall provide 

audible and visual output. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10162 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0814; FRL–9910–42– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Region 4 

States; Visibility Protection 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve submissions from Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee 

for inclusion into each state’s respective 

state implementation plan (SIP). This 

action pertains to Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) requirements regarding the 

protection of visibility in another state 

for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each 

state adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. These plans are 

commonly referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs. Specifically, EPA 

is taking final action to approve the 

submissions for Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee as they 

relate to the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIP 

requirements to protect visibility in 

other states. All other applicable 

infrastructure requirements for these 

NAAQS associated with these seven 

states have been addressed in separate 

rulemakings. 

DATES: This rule will be effective June 

6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2012–0814. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Upon promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the CAA require states to address 

basic SIP requirements, including 

emissions inventories, monitoring, and 

modeling to assure attainment and 

maintenance for that new NAAQS. On 

July 18, 1997 (62 FR 36852), EPA 

promulgated a new annual PM2.5

NAAQS and on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 

61144), EPA promulgated a new 24-hour 

NAAQS. On February 20, 2013, EPA 

proposed to approve SIP submissions 

from Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate 

to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

infrastructure SIP requirements to 

protect visibility in other states for both 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A 

summary of the background for today’s 

final action is provided below. See 

EPA’s February 20, 2013, proposed 

rulemaking at 78 FR 11805 for more 

detail. 

Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two 

components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

includes four distinct components, 

commonly referred to as ‘‘prongs,’’ that 

must be addressed in infrastructure SIP 

submissions. The first two prongs, 

which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that 

prohibit any source or other type of 

emissions activity in one state from 

contributing significantly to 

nonattainment of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 1) and interfering with 

maintenance of the NAAQS in another 

state (prong 2). The third and fourth 

prongs, which are codified in section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that 

prohibit emissions activity in one state 

interfering with measures required to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality in another state (prong 3), and to 

protect visibility in another state (prong 

4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs 

to include provisions insuring 

compliance with sections 115 and 126 

of the Act, relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement. 

EPA has previously taken action to 

address SIP submissions from Alabama, 

Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee 

related to prongs 1 through 3 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) and the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 

annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Today’s final rulemaking relates only to 

prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

which as previously described, requires 

that infrastructure SIPs contain 

adequate provisions to protect visibility 

in other states. 

II. Response to Comments 

EPA received three sets of comments 

on the February 20, 2013 proposed 

rulemaking to approve the SIP 

submissions from Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee 

addressing prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Two of the 

commenters, the Municipal Electric 

Authority of Georgia and the Utility Air 

Regulatory Group, support EPA’s 

proposed action and one commenter, 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association (the ‘‘Commenter’’), 

opposes the proposed action. A 

summary of the adverse comments and 

EPA’s responses are provided below. 

Comment 1: The Commenter states 

that EPA must disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee as they relate 

to prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 

because the submittals rely on the Clean 

Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy best 

available retrofit technology (BART) and 

reasonable progress requirements for 

CAIR-subject electric generating units 

(EGUs). According to the Commenter, 

EPA must direct each state to develop 

a plan consistent with the requirements 

of the Regional Haze Rule for sourcespecific BART and reasonable progress 

for nitrogen oxide (NOX) and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) emissions from EGUs 

subject to these regional haze 

provisions. The Commenter contends 

that reliance on CAIR is improper 

because CAIR was ‘‘declared illegal’’ 

and remanded by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit (DC Circuit) in North Carolina v. 

EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008) and 

is therefore not permanent and 

enforceable. The Commenter further 

contends that CAIR cannot substitute for 

BART because it is impermissible under 

section 169A of the CAA for EPA or the 

states to rely on a cap-and-trade 

program as a substitute for, or 

exemption from, BART and because 

EPA’s better-than-BART provision in 

the Regional Haze Rule violates the 

CAA. The Commenter also believes that 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina 

improperly relied on CAIR to ‘‘exempt’’ 

sources from a reasonable progress 

review and that, ‘‘[i]n most cases, the 

states did not perform a unit-specific 

reasonable progress analysis, but more 

generally asserted that reliance on CAIR 

was sufficient for reasonable progress.’’ 

The Commenter believes that in the 

absence of such an analysis, ‘‘it is not 

possible to determine whether or the 

extent to which CAIR may fulfill RP 

requirements, assuming that it could 

overcome the impossible hurdle of 

being an unenforceable program.’’ The 

Commenter is concerned that the 

reliance on CAIR to ‘‘remove emission 

reduction obligations from many 

sources of SO2’’ and the ‘‘methodical 

elimination of sources of NOX and PM 

emissions’’ through the states’ area of 

influence methodology ‘‘may have 

prevented the achievement of 

meaningful reasonable progress.’’ The 

Commenter also believes that ‘‘it is 

incumbent upon the states and EPA to 

demonstrate in their SIPs that they have 

actually taken all measures necessary to 

reduce their share of pollutants’’ to meet 

reasonable progress goals in neighboring 

states’ Class I areas, citing language in 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

Response 1: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. As discussed in EPA’s 

proposed rulemaking related to today’s 

action, the DC Circuit vacated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in 

EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 696 

F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012) and ordered 

EPA to ‘‘continue administering CAIR 

pending the promulgation of a valid 

replacement.’’ The Agency believes that 

it is therefore appropriate for EPA to 

rely on CAIR emission reductions for 

purposes of assessing the adequacy of 

the infrastructure SIPs subject to this 

action with respect to prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) while a valid 

replacement rule is developed and until 

submissions complying with any such 

new rule are submitted by the states and 

acted upon by EPA or until EME Homer 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 26145 

1Under CAA sections 301(a) and 110(k)(6) and 

EPA’s long-standing guidance, a limited approval 

results in approval of the entire SIP submittal, even 

those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA from 

granting a full approval of the SIP revision. 

Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Revisions, EPA Memorandum from John Calcagni, 

Director, Air Quality Management Division, 

OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional 

Offices I–X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni 

Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ 

caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is appropriate to approve the 

infrastructure SIPs subject to today’s action as they 

relate to prong 4 despite the limited approval 

granted to the relevant regional haze SIPs. 

The SIP provisions implementing CAIR for each 

of the states subject to this action are identified in 

the following sections of 40 CFR Part 52: 52.50(c) 

(Alabama); 52.570(c) (Georgia); 52.920(c) 

(Kentucky); 52.1270(c) (Mississippi); 52.1770(c) 

(North Carolina); 52.2120(c) (South Carolina); and 

52.2220(c) (Tennessee). 

2See 77 FR 76415 (Dec. 28, 2012) (redesignation 

of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 59841 (Sept. 30, 2013) 

(redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 56168 (Sept. 12, 2013) 

(redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS); 78 FR 5306 (Jan. 25, 2013) 

(redesignation of Birmingham, Alabama for the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

3Utility Air Regulatory Group, 471 F.3d at 1340. 

4See Alabama: 77 FR 11937, 11947–48, 11955– 

56 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38515 (June 

28, 2012) (final); Georgia: 77 FR 11452, 11463, 

11474–75 (Feb. 27, 2012) (proposed), 77 FR 38501 

(June 28, 2012) (final); Kentucky: 76 FR 78194, 

78205–06, 78213 (Dec. 16, 2011) (proposed), 77 FR 

19098 (Mar. 30, 2012) (final); Mississippi: 77 FR 

11879, 11888, 11892 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 77 

FR 38191 (June 27, 2012) (final); North Carolina: 77 

FR 11858, 11869, 11877 (Feb. 28, 2012) (proposed), 

77 FR 38185 (June 27, 2012) (final); South Carolina: 

77 FR 11894, 11904, 11911–12 (Feb. 28, 2012) 

(proposed), 77 FR 38509 (June 28, 2012) (final); 

Tennessee: 76 FR 33662, 33673, 33683–84 (June 9, 

2011) (proposed), 77 FR 24392 (Apr. 24, 2012) 

(final). 

5See, e.g., 77 FR 11949, 11951, 11956. 

6This conclusion was reached by the Visibility 

Improvement State and Tribal Association of the 

Southeast (VISTAS) regional planning organization 

and adopted by each of the VISTAS states in their 

respective regional haze SIP submissions. VISTAS 

member states include: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

VISTAS determined that ammonium sulfate 

accounted for 69 to 87 percent of the calculated 

light extinction at the 18 Class I areas within the 

region. See, e.g., 77 FR 11946. 

In evaluating reasonable progress, states may 

identify and focus on key pollutants that contribute 

to visibility impairment. EPA, Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional 

Haze Program at 3–1 (June 1, 2007) [hereinafter 

‘‘Reasonable Progress Guidance’’]. 

7See, e.g., 77 FR 11947–48. 

8See, e.g., id. at 11946–49. 

9 77 FR 11949; 77 FR 11464–69; 76 FR 78206–07; 

77 FR 11872; 77 FR 11906–07. Georgia concluded 

that additional controls were not required on CAIRsubject EGUs that significantly contributed to 

visibility impairment at Class I areas that are clearly 

projected to meet or exceed the Uniform Rate of 

Progress (URP) in 2018 because of CAIR emissions 

reductions and the emissions reductions associated 

Continued 

City is resolved in a way that provides 

different direction regarding CAIR and 

CSAPR. 

Furthermore, CAIR remains part of 

the federally-approved SIPs for 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee and can be 

considered in determining whether each 

of the infrastructure SIPs subject to 

today’s action meets the requirements of 

prong 4. EPA is taking final action to 

approve these infrastructure SIP 

submissions with respect to prong 4 

because the EPA-approved regional haze 

SIP for each state, in combination with 

each state’s implementation plan 

provisions to implement CAIR, 

adequately prevent sources in each state 

from interfering with measures adopted 

by other states to protect visibility 

during the first planning period.1 EPA 

notes that all of the rulemakings and 

proposed rulemakings cited by the 

Commenter that discuss the limited 

approvability of SIPs due to the status 

of CAIR were issued by EPA prior to the 

vacatur of CSAPR. Since the vacatur of 

CSAPR in August 2012 and with 

continued implementation of CAIR per 

the direction of the DC Circuit in EME 

Homer City, EPA has approved 

redesignations of areas to attainment of 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in 

which states have relied on CAIR as a 

permanent and enforceable measure.2

EPA disagrees with the Commenter 

that the CAA does not allow states to 

rely on an alternative program such as 

CAIR in lieu of source-specific BART. 

EPA’s regulations allow states to adopt 

alternatives to BART that provide for 

greater reasonable progress, and EPA’s 

determination that states may rely on 

CAIR to meet the BART requirements 

has been upheld by the DC Circuit as 

meeting the requirements of the CAA. In 

the first case challenging the provisions 

in the Regional Haze Rule allowing for 

states to adopt alternative programs in 

lieu of BART, Center for Energy and 

Economic Development v. EPA, 398 

F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the court 

affirmed the Agency’s interpretation of 

section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for 

alternatives to BART where those 

alternatives will result in greater 

reasonable progress than BART. In the 

second case, Utility Air Regulatory 

Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 

2006), the court specifically upheld 

EPA’s determination that states could 

rely on CAIR as an alternative to BART 

for EGUs in the CAIR-affected states. 

The court concluded that the EPA’s twopronged test for determining whether an 

alternative program achieves greater 

reasonable progress was a reasonable 

one and also agreed with EPA that 

nothing in the CAA required the EPA to 

‘‘impose a separate technology mandate 

for sources whose emissions affect Class 

I areas, rather than piggy-backing on 

solutions devised under other statutory 

categories, where such solutions meet 

the statutory requirements.’’ 3

More fundamentally, EPA disagrees 

with the Commenter that the adequacy 

of the BART measures in the regional 

haze SIPs for these states is relevant to 

the question of whether each state’s 

implementation plan meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of 

the CAA with respect to visibility. EPA 

interprets the visibility provisions in 

this section of the CAA as requiring 

states to include in their SIPs measures 

to prohibit emissions that would 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals set to protect Class I areas in other 

states. The Regional Haze Rule includes 

a similar requirement in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3), and for each of the states 

subject to this action, EPA found that 

the respective regional haze SIP meets 

this requirement.4 Each of these states 

relied on CAIR to achieve significant 

reductions in emissions to both meet the 

BART requirements and to address 

impacts of the state on Class I areas in 

other states.5 The question of whether or 

not CAIR satisfies the BART 

requirements has no bearing on whether 

these measures meet the requirements of 

prong 4. 

Regarding the reasonable progress 

evaluations, each state at issue focused 

its reasonable progress analysis on SO2

emissions based on the conclusion that 

sulfate particles account for the greatest 

portion of the regional haze affecting 

Class I areas in these states.6 Each state 

then established areas of influence and 

contribution thresholds to determine 

which of its sources should be evaluated 

for reasonable progress control.7 EPA 

approved each state’s methodology for 

identifying units for reasonable progress 

evaluation and each state’s reasonable 

progress determinations in the 

respective regional haze SIP actions and 

provided a detailed discussion of the 

methodology and the rationale for 

approval in the Federal Register notices 

associated with those actions.8

Contrary to the Commenter’s 

assertions, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina did 

not ‘‘exempt [CAIR] sources . . . that 

would otherwise be subject to 

reasonable progress review.’’ Each of 

these states considered the four 

statutory reasonable progress factors in 

evaluating whether CAIR would satisfy 

reasonable progress requirements for the 

state’s EGU sector and determined that 

no additional controls beyond CAIR 

were reasonable for SO2 during the first 

planning period.9 As discussed in EPA’s 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

with Georgia state rule 391–3–1-.02(13) (capping 

SO2 emissions from Georgia EGUs in 2015 at 30 

percent of 2002 actual emissions). Georgia 

evaluated reasonable progress controls for EGUs 

that significantly contributed to visibility 

impairment at Class I areas not meeting the URP. 

77 FR 11469. 

10Reasonable Progress Guidance at 4–2. 

11 Id. 

12See, e.g., 77 FR 38193. 

13 79 FR 3147 (Jan. 17, 2014). 

14 Id. at 3150. 

15 Id. 

16 Id. at 3151. 

17 Id. at 3152. 

18 79 FR at 3152. 

19Regional Haze 5-Year Periodic Review State 

Implementation Plan for North Carolina Class I 

Areas (May 31, 2013) at 32–36. 

20 Id. at 32. 

21 Id. at 42–44. 

Reasonable Progress Guidance, states 

may evaluate the need for reasonable 

progress controls on a source category 

basis, rather than through a unit-specific 

analysis, and have wide latitude to 

determine additional control 

requirements for ensuring reasonable 

progress.10 The guidance also notes that 

states may consider emissions 

reductions from cap-and-trade programs 

such as CAIR in addition to sourcespecific controls.11

As mentioned above, EPA determined 

that each of the regional haze SIPs 

submitted by the states subject to this 

action adequately prevents sources in 

the state from interfering with the 

reasonable progress goals adopted by 

other states to protect visibility during 

the first planning period, thus satisfying 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

These states participated in a regional 

planning process through VISTAS, and 

their SIPs include all measures needed 

to achieve their respective 

apportionment of emissions reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process as required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii).12

Comment 2: EPA must disapprove the 

infrastructure SIP submittals from North 

Carolina and South Carolina under 

prong 4 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) because EPA 

has not approved the State’s five-year 

progress reports. 

Response 2: EPA disagrees with the 

Commenter. EPA received the North 

Carolina and South Carolina progress 

report SIP submittals on May 31, 2013, 

and December 28, 2012, respectively. As 

of this final rulemaking, EPA has not 

taken final action on these submissions, 

and no such action is due pursuant to 

CAA section 110(k)(2) at this time. 

Therefore, EPA does not believe that 

EPA approval of these progress reports 

is a required structural element 

necessary before EPA may approve the 

North Carolina and South Carolina 

infrastructure SIPs subject to this action. 

Nevertheless, EPA notes that it has 

proposed approval of South Carolina’s 

progress report SIP submission since the 

publication of the proposed 

infrastructure action that is the subject 

of this rulemaking.13 As discussed in 

the proposed rulemaking on the 

progress report, South Carolina 

provided SO2 emissions data from 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division 

(CAMD) for EGUs in South Carolina and 

in the entire VISTAS region from 2002– 

2011.14 This data indicates that 

emissions of SO2, the primary 

contributor to visibility impairment in 

the VISTAS region, have declined 

significantly since South Carolina 

submitted its regional haze SIP in 

2007.15 South Carolina’s progress report 

also states that total SO2 emissions from 

South Carolina EGUs are already below 

the 2018 projections in South Carolina’s 

2007 regional haze SIP submittal and 

are expected to decrease further.16 In 

addition, the most current visibility data 

available at the time of EPA’s proposed 

approval of the progress report shows 

that visibility has improved at the Cape 

Romain Wilderness Area, the Class I 

area within South Carolina.17 For these 

reasons, EPA has proposed to approve 

South Carolina’s negative declaration 

pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no 

further substantive revision of the 

State’s regional haze SIP is required at 

this time to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals for Class I areas affected 

by the State’s sources and continues to 

believe that the State’s existing SIP 

(including the regional haze SIP and 

CAIR) contains adequate provisions to 

meet the visibility protection 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).18

Although EPA has not yet proposed 

action on North Carolina’s progress 

report SIP, the Agency has performed a 

preliminary review of the submission. 

North Carolina included 2011 SO2

emissions data from CAMD for EGUs in 

North Carolina that are expected to be 

retired by 2015 and for EGUs that were 

projected in the 2007 regional haze SIP 

submission to have controls installed by 

2018.19 Based on this data, North 

Carolina reported a reduction in SO2

emissions of approximately 390,000 

tons per year from these units between 

2002–2011 and estimated that 2018 SO2

emissions would be approximately 80 

percent lower than those projected in 

the regional haze SIP.20 North Carolina 

also provided visibility data supporting 

its conclusion that visibility has 

improved since the 2000–2004 baseline 

at all five of the Class I areas in the 

State.21 Based on EPA’s preliminary 

review of this information and other 

information provided in the State’s 

progress report SIP submission, EPA 

continues to believe, at this time, that 

the State’s existing SIP (including the 

regional haze SIP and CAIR) contains 

adequate provisions to meet the 

visibility protection requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

III. This Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

the infrastructure SIP submissions from 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee as 

demonstrating that these states meet the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA that relate to 

the protection of visibility in other 

states for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In describing how 

its submission meets this requirement, 

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee each referred to 

EPA-approved state provisions requiring 

EGUs to comply with the CAIR and to 

the limited approval and limited 

disapproval of its regional haze SIP. 

Although EPA has not fully approved 

the regional haze SIPs from these states, 

the Agency believes that the 

infrastructure SIP submission together 

with previously approved SIP 

provisions, specifically those provisions 

that require EGUs to comply with CAIR 

and the additional measures in the 

regional haze SIP addressing BART and 

reasonable progress requirements for 

other sources or pollutants, are adequate 

to demonstrate compliance with prong 

4. 

IV. Final Action 

As described above, EPA is approving 

SIP submissions from Alabama, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee to 

incorporate provisions into the states’ 

implementation plans to address prong 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA 

for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS because these submissions are 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable federal regulations. 

See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this final action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

federal requirements and does not 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 26147 

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). 

EPA has determined that this final 

rule does not have tribal implications as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because 

there are no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ 

on an Indian Tribe as a result of this 

action. EPA notes that the Catawba 

Indian Nation Reservation is located 

within South Carolina. Pursuant to the 

Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, 

S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state 

and local environmental laws and 

regulations apply to the Catawba Indian 

Nation and Reservation and are fully 

enforceable by all relevant state and 

local agencies and authorities.’’ Thus, 

while the South Carolina SIP applies to 

the Catawba Reservation, because 

today’s action is not a substantive 

revision to the South Carolina SIP, and 

is instead approving South Carolina’s 

infrastructure SIP submission to 

incorporate provisions satisfying prong 

4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA has 

determined that today’s action will have 

no ‘‘substantial direct effects’’ on the 

Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also 

determined that these revisions will not 

impose any substantial direct costs on 

tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 7, 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: April 18, 2014. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

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. 

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Alabama ............................ 7/25/2008 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Alabama ............................ 9/23/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Subpart L—Georgia 

■ 3. Section 52.570(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED GEORGIA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Georgia .............................. 7/23/2008 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Georgia .............................. 10/21/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 4. Section 52.920(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards.’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanations 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Kentucky ............................ 8/26/2008 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Kentucky ............................ 7/17/2012 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

Subpart Z—Mississippi 

■ 5. Section 52.1270(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MISSISSIPPI NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Mississippi ......................... 12/7/2007 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Mississippi ......................... 10/6/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 26149 

Subpart II—North Carolina 

■ 6. Section 52.1770(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NORTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Federal Register citation Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

4/1/2008 5/7/2014 ............................. [Insert citation of publication].Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

9/21/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

[Insert citation of publication].Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 7. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

4/14/2008 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication].Addressing prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

9/18/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of publication].Addressing prong 4 of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

Subpart RR—Tennessee 

■ 8. Section 52.2220(e), is amended by 

adding two new entries for ‘‘110(a)(1) 

and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 

1997 Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ and 

‘‘110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate 

Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards’’ at the end of the table to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED TENNESSEE NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 1997 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Tennessee ......................... 12/14/2007 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 

110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements for 2006 Fine Particulate Matter 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Tennessee ......................... 10/19/2009 5/7/2014 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Addressing prong 4 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) only. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
26150 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 88 / Wednesday, May 7, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2014–10347 Filed 5–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0210; FRL–9907–59] 

α-Alkyl-w-Hydroxypoly (Oxypropylene) 

and/or Poly (Oxyethylene) Polymers 

Where the Alkyl Chain Contains a 

Minimum of Six Carbons etc.; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance; Technical Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction. 

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the 

Federal Register of February 3, 2014, 

establishing an exemption from the 

requirement of a tolerance for residues 

of a-alkyl-w-hydroxypoly 

(oxypropylene) and/or poly 

(oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl 

chain contains a minimum of six 

carbons, and a-alkyl-w-hydroxypoly 

(oxypropylene) and/or poly 

(oxyethylene) polymers where the alkyl 

chain contains a minimum of six 

carbons and a minimum number 

average molecular weight (in amu) 1,100 

when used as an inert ingredient as a 

surfactant in pesticide formulations in 

growing crops without limitations. The 

document inadvertently omitted 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) 

registry numbers from the regulatory 

text. This document corrects those 

errors. 

DATES: This final rule correction is 

effective May 7, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0210, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton 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 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (7509), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7092; email address: 

RDFRNNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this action apply to me? 

The Agency included in the Federal 

Register of February 3, 2014 (79 FR 

6092) (FRL–9394–2), a list of those who 

may be potentially affected by this 

action. 

II. What does this technical correction 

do? 

EPA issued a final rule in the Federal 

Register of February 3, 2014 (79 FR 

6092), that established an exemption 

from the requirement of a tolerance for 

certain chemicals when used as an inert 

ingredient as a surfactant in pesticide 

formulations in growing crops without 

limitations. In the regulatory text, CAS 

registry numbers were inadvertently 

omitted under §§ 180.910, 180.930, 

180.940, and 180.960. 

III. Why is this correction issued as a 

final rule? 

Section 553 of the Administrative 

Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an 

agency for good cause finds that notice 

and public procedure are impracticable, 

unnecessary, or contrary to the public 

interest, the agency may issue a final 

rule without providing notice and an 

opportunity for public comment. EPA 

has determined that there is good cause 

for making this technical correction 

final without prior proposal and 

opportunity for comment, because this 

document merely corrects technical 

omissions. EPA finds that this 

constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(B). 

IV. Do any of the statutory and 

executive order reviews apply to this 

action? 

No. For a detailed discussion 

concerning the statutory and executive 

order review, refer to Unit VII. of the 

February 3, 2014 final rule. 

V. Congressional Review Act 

Pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ‘‘major 

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: April 23, 2014. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 is 

corrected as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. In § 180.910, the table is amended 

by revising the following inert 

ingredient to read as follows: 

§ 180.910 Inert ingredients used pre- and 

post-harvest; exemptions from the 

requirement of a tolerance. 

* * * * * 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES