46700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1All references to a statute in this priority are to 

sections of IDEA unless otherwise noted. 

p.m. each day from August 6, 2014 

through August 8, 2014 and from 

August 11, 2014 through August 15, 

2014. 

Dated: July 30, 2014. 

Christopher S. Keane, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18864 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter III 

Final Priority; Technical Assistance on 

State Data Collection—IDEA Fiscal 

Data Center 

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Final priority. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Special Education and Rehabilitative 

Services announces a priority under the 

Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use this priority for 

competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 

and later years. We take this action to 

focus attention on an identified national 

need to provide technical assistance 

(TA) to improve the capacity of States 

to meet the data collection requirements 

of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of 

this priority is to establish a Fiscal IDEA 

Data Center (Center) to provide States 

with TA for meeting their fiscal data 

collection and reporting obligations 

under IDEA. 

DATES: Effective Date: This priority is 

effective September 10, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Schneer, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 4169, Potomac Center Plaza 

(PCP), Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Telephone: (202) 245–6755 or by email: 

matthew.schneer@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the Technical Assistance on State Data 

Collection program is to improve the 

capacity of States to meet their IDEA 

data collection and reporting 

requirements under sections 616 and 

618 of IDEA. Funding for the program 

is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of 

IDEA, which gives the Secretary the 

authority to reserve funds appropriated 

under Part B of IDEA to provide TA 

activities authorized under section 

616(i).1 Section 616(i) requires the 

Secretary to review the data collection 

and analysis capacity of States to ensure 

that data and information determined 

necessary for implementation of section 

616 are collected, analyzed, and 

accurately reported. It also requires the 

Secretary to provide TA, where needed, 

to improve the capacity of States to meet 

the data collection requirements under 

IDEA. The Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2014 gives the Secretary the 

authority to use FY 2014 funds reserved 

under section 611(c) to assist the 

Secretary in administering and carrying 

out other services and activities to 

improve data collection, coordination, 

quality, and use under Parts B and C of 

IDEA (Pub. L. 113–76). 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 

1416(i), and 1418(c); Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113–76). 

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 

CFR 300.702. 

We published a notice of proposed 

priority for this competition in the 

Federal Register on May 1, 2014 (79 FR 

24661). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for proposing this particular priority. 

Except for minor editorial revisions and 

one technical revision (noted below), 

there are no differences between the 

proposed priority and this final priority. 

We made a technical revision to the 

Administrative Requirements part of 

this priority in paragraph (g)(4)(ii) so 

that it now requires applicants to budget 

for a two and one-half day project 

directors’ meeting in Washington, DC, to 

occur every other year beginning with 

the meeting scheduled for Summer 

2016. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the notice of proposed 

priority, we did not receive any 

comments related to the proposed 

priority. 

Final Priority 

IDEA Fiscal Data Center 

The purpose of this priority is to fund 

a cooperative agreement to establish and 

operate a Center to achieve, at a 

minimum, the following expected 

outcomes: (a) Improve the capacity of 

State staff to collect and report accurate 

fiscal data to meet the data collection 

requirements related to the IDEA Part B 

local educational agency (LEA) 

Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Reduction 

and Coordinated Early Intervening 

Services (CEIS) [LEA MOE/CEIS] and 

State Maintenance of Financial Support 

(State MFS); and (b) increase States’ 

knowledge of the underlying fiscal 

requirements and the calculations 

necessary to submit valid and reliable 

data on LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS. 

Project Activities. To meet the 

requirements of this priority, the Center, 

at a minimum, must conduct the 

following activities: 

Knowledge Development Activities 

(a) To ensure that States have the 

capacity to collect and report accurate 

LEA MOE/CEIS and State MFS fiscal 

data, survey all 60 IDEA Part B 

programs in the first year to: 

(1) Assess their capacity to collect and 

report high-quality LEA MOE/CEIS and 

State MFS fiscal data required under 

data collections authorized under 

section 618 and identify the policies 

and practices that facilitate or hinder 

the collection of accurate data 

consistent with IDEA fiscal 

requirements; and 

(2) Analyze and catalogue how States 

make available State financial support 

for special education and related 

services in order to develop templates 

that increase the capacity of States to 

collect and report accurate data; 

(b) In the first year, analyze the LEA 

MOE/CEIS data submissions and data 

notes to determine common data 

collection and submission errors and to 

identify States in need of intensive or 

targeted TA. 

Technical Assistance and 

Dissemination Activities 

(a) Provide intensive TA to a 

minimum of 10 State educational 

agencies (SEAs) per year, which may 

include continued TA for some SEAs for 

longer than one year, to improve States’ 

collection and submission of IDEA fiscal 

data consistent with the following two 

annual data collection requirements 

authorized under section 618 of IDEA: 

(1) Section V of the Annual State 

Application under Part B of IDEA (Part 

B Annual Application); and (2) the LEA 

MOE/CEIS Data Collection, which was 

formerly referred to as the Report on 

Maintenance of Effort Reduction and 

Coordinated Early Intervening Services 

(Table 8). Preference should be given to 

those States with the greatest need, 

including States with a demonstrated 

failure to accurately report MFS or LEA 

MOE/CEIS data, and States requesting 

TA. When working with States on LEA 

MOE/CEIS data, the TA should develop 

the capacity of SEAs to train LEAS to 

accurately report the required data; 

(b) Provide a range of targeted and 

general TA products and services 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46701 

2 ‘‘Universal, general TA’’ means TA and 

information provided to independent users through 

their own initiative, resulting in minimal 

interaction with TA center staff and including onetime, invited or offered conference presentations by 

TA center staff. This category of TA also includes 

information or products, such as newsletters, 

guidebooks, or research syntheses, downloaded 

from the TA center’s Web site by independent 

users. Brief communications by TA center staff with 

recipients, either by telephone or email, are also 

considered universal, general TA. 

3 ‘‘Targeted, specialized TA’’ means TA service 

based on needs common to multiple recipients and 

not extensively individualized. A relationship is 

established between the TA recipient and one or 

more TA center staff. This category of TA includes 

one-time, labor-intensive events, such as facilitating 

strategic planning or hosting regional or national 

conferences. It can also include episodic, less laborintensive events that extend over a period of time, 

such as facilitating a series of conference calls on 

single or multiple topics that are designed around 

the needs of the recipients. Facilitating 

communities of practice can also be considered 

targeted, specialized TA. 

4 ‘‘Intensive, sustained TA’’ means TA services 

often provided on-site and requiring a stable, 

ongoing relationship between the TA center staff 

and the TA recipient. ‘‘TA services’’ are defined as 

negotiated series of activities designed to reach a 

valued outcome. This category of TA should result 

in changes to policy, program, practice, or 

operations that support increased recipient capacity 

or improved outcomes at one or more systems 

levels. 

related to fiscal data to the 60 SEAs with 

IDEA Part B programs to improve State 

capacity to collect and report valid and 

reliable data, including the 

dissemination of Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) guidance on 

IDEA fiscal requirements and the 

development and dissemination of TA 

products on IDEA fiscal data collection 

and reporting requirements, and 

improve the capacity of SEAs to train 

LEAs to accurately report the required 

data; and 

(c) Develop templates to assist States 

in collecting valid and reliable State 

MFS and LEA MOE/CEIS data so those 

data can be accurately reported to OSEP. 

These templates should be designed to 

accommodate variances in State school 

financing systems (insofar as possible) 

and remind users of the applicable 

required components of the calculation. 

Coordination Activities 

(a) Communicate and coordinate, on 

an ongoing basis, with other 

Department-funded projects, including 

those providing data-related support to 

States, such as the National Technical 

Assistance Center to Improve State 

Capacity to Accurately Collect and 

Report IDEA Data; and 

(b) Maintain ongoing communication 

with the OSEP project officer. 

Administrative Requirements 

To be considered for funding under 

this priority, applicants must meet the 

application and administrative 

requirements in this priority. OSEP 

encourages innovative approaches to 

meet these requirements, which are: 

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Significance of the Project,’’ how the 

proposed project will address States’ 

capacity to: (1) Understand IDEA’s 

statutory and regulatory basis for the 

fiscal reporting requirements; (2) collect 

valid and reliable fiscal data; (3) 

conduct required calculations consistent 

with IDEA requirements; and (4) report 

valid and reliable fiscal data; and 

(b) Demonstrate knowledge of IDEA 

fiscal data collections, including the 

underlying statutory and regulatory 

requirements, current fiscal guidance, 

and State school funding systems; 

(c) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Project Services,’’ how 

the proposed project will— 

(1) Achieve its goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

provide— 

(i) Measurable intended project 

outcomes; and 

(ii) The logic model by which the 

proposed project will achieve its 

intended outcomes; 

(2) Use a conceptual framework to 

develop project plans and activities, 

describing any underlying concepts, 

assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or 

theories, as well as the presumed 

relationships or linkages among these 

variables, and any empirical support for 

this framework; 

(3) Base the design of the TA on 

current research and make use of 

evidence-based practices. To meet this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) The current research about adult 

learning principles and implementation 

science that will inform the proposed 

TA; and 

(ii) How the proposed project will 

incorporate current research and 

evidence-based practices in the 

development and delivery of its 

products and services; 

(4) Develop products and provide 

services that are of high quality and 

sufficient intensity and duration to 

achieve the intended outcomes of the 

proposed project. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) How it proposes to identify or 

develop the knowledge base for IDEA 

fiscal data collection and reporting 

requirements; 

(ii) How it proposes to conduct the 

survey of all 60 IDEA Part B Programs 

administered by SEAs; 

(iii) How it proposes to conduct 

universal, general TA 2 for the 60 SEAs 

that have IDEA Part B programs; 

(iv) How it proposes to provide 

targeted, specialized TA,3 which must 

identify— 

(A) The intended recipients of the 

products and services under this 

approach; 

(B) How it proposes to measure the 

readiness of potential TA recipients to 

work with the project, assessing, at a 

minimum, their current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the LEA level; and 

(C) Appropriate staff with the 

requisite responsibilities to receive the 

TA in these areas. 

(v) How it proposes to provide 

intensive, sustained TA to the 10 or 

more selected SEAs,4 which must 

identify— 

(A) How it proposes to select and 

recruit SEAs to work with the proposed 

project, considering the SEAs’ need for 

the initiative, current infrastructure, 

available resources, and ability to build 

capacity at the LEA level; 

(B) How it proposes to assist SEAs in 

building training systems that include 

professional development based on 

adult learning principles and coaching; 

and 

(C) How it proposes to involve and 

work with other regional TA providers 

to assist SEAs with communication 

between each level of the education 

system (e.g., districts, schools, families); 

(5) Develop products and implement 

services to maximize the project’s 

efficiency. To address this requirement, 

the applicant must describe— 

(i) How the proposed project will use 

technology to achieve the intended 

project outcomes; 

(ii) With whom the proposed project 

will collaborate and the intended 

outcomes of this collaboration; and 

(iii) How the proposed project will 

use non-project resources to achieve the 

intended project outcomes. 

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Evaluation Plan,’’ how— 

(1) The proposed project will collect 

and analyze data on specific and 

measurable goals, objectives, and 

intended outcomes of the project. To 

address this requirement, the applicant 

must describe its— 

(i) Proposed evaluation 

methodologies, including instruments, 

data collection methods, and analyses; 

and 

(ii) Proposed standards or targets for 

determining effectiveness; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46702 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) The proposed project will use the 

evaluation results to examine the 

effectiveness of its implementation and 

its progress toward achieving intended 

outcomes; and 

(3) The proposed methods of 

evaluation will produce quantitative 

and qualitative data that demonstrate 

whether the project achieved the 

intended outcomes. 

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Adequacy of Project Resources,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed project will 

encourage applications for employment 

from persons who are members of 

groups that have traditionally been 

underrepresented based on race, color, 

national origin, gender, age, or 

disability, as appropriate; 

(2) The proposed key project 

personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors have the qualifications 

and experience to carry out the 

proposed activities and achieve the 

project’s intended outcomes, including 

experience working with State and 

district fiscal systems; 

(3) The applicant and any key 

partners have adequate resources to 

carry out the proposed activities; and 

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable 

in relation to the anticipated results and 

benefits. 

(f) Demonstrate, in the narrative 

section of the application under 

‘‘Quality of the Management Plan,’’ 

how— 

(1) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the project’s intended 

outcomes will be achieved on time and 

within budget. To address this 

requirement, the applicant must 

describe— 

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for 

key project personnel, consultants, and 

subcontractors, as applicable; and 

(ii) Timelines and milestones for 

accomplishing the project tasks; 

(2) Key project personnel and any 

consultants and subcontractors will be 

allocated to the project and how these 

allocations are appropriate and adequate 

to achieve the project’s intended 

outcomes; 

(3) The proposed management plan 

will ensure that the products and 

services provided are of high quality; 

and 

(4) The proposed project will obtain a 

diversity of perspectives, including 

those of State and local personnel, TA 

providers, researchers, and policy 

makers, among others, in the 

development and operation of its plan. 

(g) Address the following application 

requirements: 

(1) Include in Appendix A a logic 

model that depicts, at a minimum, the 

goals, activities, outputs, and outcomes 

of the proposed project. A logic model 

communicates how a project will 

achieve its intended outcomes and 

provides a framework for both the 

formative and summative evaluations of 

the project. 

Note: The following Web sites provide 

more information on logic models: 

www.researchutilization.org/matrix/

logicmodel_resource3c.html and 

www.tadnet.org/pages/589; 

(2) Include in Appendix A a 

conceptual framework for the project; 

(3) Include in Appendix A personloading charts and timelines, as 

applicable, to illustrate the management 

plan described in the narrative; 

(4) Include in the budget the costs for 

attending the following events: 

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off 

meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt 

of the award, and an annual planning 

meeting in Washington, DC, with the 

OSEP project officer and other relevant 

staff during each subsequent year of the 

project period. 

Note: Within 30 days of receipt of the 

award, a post-award teleconference must be 

held between the OSEP project officer and 

the grantee’s project director or other 

authorized representative; 

(ii) A two and one-half day project 

directors’ meeting in Washington, DC, to 

occur every other year beginning with 

the meeting scheduled for Summer 

2016; 

(iii) A two-day trip annually for 

Department briefings, Departmentsponsored conferences, and other 

meetings, as requested by OSEP; and 

(iv) A one-day intensive review 

meeting in Washington, DC, during the 

last half of the second year of the project 

period; 

(5) Include in the budget a line item 

for an annual set-aside of five percent of 

the grant amount to support emerging 

needs that are consistent with the 

proposed project’s intended outcomes, 

as those needs are identified in 

consultation with OSEP; 

Note: With approval from the OSEP project 

officer, the grantee must reallocate any 

remaining funds from this annual set-aside 

no later than the end of the third quarter of 

each budget period; and 

(6) Maintain a Web site that meets 

government or industry-recognized 

standards for accessibility. 

Types of Priorities: 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we give competitive preference to an 

application by (1) awarding additional 

points, depending on the extent to 

which the application meets the priority 

(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting 

an application that meets the priority 

over an application of comparable merit 

that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use this priority, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 46703 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed this final 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing this final priority only 

on a reasoned determination that its 

benefits justify its costs. In choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, we selected those 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Based on the analysis that follows, the 

Department believes that this regulatory 

action is consistent with the principles 

in Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

An IDEA Fiscal Data Center funded 

under the priority established by this 

regulatory action will assist States in 

complying with Federal laws and 

regulations. Without this regulatory 

action, the burden of improving State 

capacity to collect, report, and analyze 

IDEA data will fall solely on the 

responsible State and local entities. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: August 6, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–18968 Filed 8–8–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–01 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0517; FRL–9914–95– 

Region–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Finding of Failure To 

Submit a PSD State Implementation 

Plan Revision for PM2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) finds that the State of 

Wisconsin has not made a necessary 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submission to address the PSD 

permitting of Particulate Matter of less 

than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) emissions, 

as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Specifically, EPA has determined that 

Wisconsin has not submitted a SIP 

revision to address the PM2.5 PSD 

increments and implementing 

regulations as promulgated by EPA on 

October 20, 2010, by the required 

deadline of July 20, 2012. The CAA 

requires EPA to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the outstanding PSD SIP elements by no 

later than 24 months after the effective 

date of this finding. EPA is making this 

finding in accordance with section 110 

and part C of the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0517. 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 

(CBI) 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES