Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 36689 

‘‘Fountaingrove District.’’ For purposes 

of part 4 of this chapter, ‘‘Fountaingrove 

District’’ is a term of viticultural 

significance. 

(b) Approved maps. The four United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) 

1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to 

determine the boundary of the 

Fountaingrove District viticultural area 

are titled: 

(1) Mark West Springs, CA; 1993; 

(2) Calistoga, CA; 1997; 

(3) Kenwood, CA; 1954; photorevised 

1980; and 

(4) Santa Rosa, CA; 1994. 

(c) Boundary. The Fountaingrove 

District viticultural area is located in 

Sonoma County, California. The 

boundary of the Fountaingrove District 

viticultural area is as described below: 

(1) The beginning point is on the 

Mark West Springs map at the 

intersection of the shared Sonoma–Napa 

County line with Petrified Forest Road, 

section 3, T8N/R7W. 

(2) From the beginning point, proceed 

southeasterly along the Sonoma–Napa 

County line, crossing onto the Calistoga 

map and then the Kenwood map, to the 

marked 2,530-peak of an unnamed 

mountain, section 9, T7N/R6W; then 

(3) Proceed west-southwest in a 

straight line to the marked 2,730-foot 

summit of Mt. Hood, section 8, T7N/

R6W; then 

(4) Proceed west-northwest in a 

straight line to the marked 1,542-foot 

summit of Buzzard Peak, section 11, 

T7N/R7W; then 

(5) Proceed west-southwest in a 

straight line, crossing onto the Santa 

Rosa map, to the intersection of State 

Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road; then 

(6) Proceed due north in a straight 

line to the southern boundary of section 

9, T7N/R7W; then 

(7) Proceed west-northwest along the 

southern boundaries of sections 9, 4, 

and 5, T7N/R7W, to the western 

boundary of the Los Guilicos Land 

Grant; then 

(8) Proceed west-southwest along the 

southern boundaries of sections 5, 6, 

and 7, T7N/R7W; then continue westsouthwest along the southern 

boundaries of sections 12 and 11, T7N/ 

R8W, to the point where the section 11 

boundary becomes concurrent with an 

unnamed light-duty road known locally 

as Lewis Road; and then continue westsouthwest along Lewis Road to the 

road’s intersection with Mendocino 

Avenue in Santa Rosa; then 

(9) Proceed north-northwesterly along 

Mendocino Avenue to the road’s 

intersection with an unnamed road 

known locally as Bicentennial Way; 

then 

(10) Proceed north in a straight line, 

crossing through the marked 906-foot 

elevation peak in section 35, T8N/R8W, 

and, crossing on to the Mark West 

Springs map, continue to the line’s 

intersection with Mark West Springs 

Road, section 26, T8N/R8W; then 

(11) Proceed northerly along Mark 

West Springs Road, which turns easterly 

and becomes Porter Creek Road, to the 

road’s intersection with Franz Valley 

Road, section 12, T8N/R8W; then 

(12) Proceed northeasterly along 

Franz Valley Road to the western 

boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W; then 

(13) Proceed south along the western 

boundary of section 6, T8N/R7W, to the 

southwest corner of section 6; then 

(14) Proceed east, then east-northeast 

along the southern boundaries of 

sections 6, 5, and 4, T8N/R7W, to the 

southeast corner of section 4; then 

(15) Proceed north along the eastern 

boundary of section 4, T8N/R7W, to the 

Sonoma–Napa County line; then 

(16) Proceed easterly along the 

Sonoma–Napa County line to the 

beginning point. 

Dated: June 23, 2014. 

John J. Manfreda, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15212 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9912–86- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Proposed Approval of 

Revisions to PSD Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Wisconsin State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) to EPA on March 12, 

2014, for parallel processing. The 

submittal modifies Wisconsin’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program to identify precursors for 

particulate matter of less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5), includes the 

significant emissions rates for PM2.5 and 

revises its definitions of PM2.5 emissions 

and emissions of particulate matter of 

less than 10 micrometers (PM10). WDNR 

requested these revisions to address 

disapprovals of two submissions meant 

to address requirements of the 2008 

Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for PM2.5 and to address 

a partial disapproval, under section 110 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA), of what is 

commonly referred to as an 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. EPA is proposing 

approval of Wisconsin’s March 12, 

2014, SIP revision because the Agency 

has made the preliminary determination 

that this SIP revision is in accordance 

with the CAA and applicable EPA 

regulations regarding PSD. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0242, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 385–5501. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014– 

0242. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36690 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Andrea 

Morgan, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–6058 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Morgan, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6058, 

Morgan.andrea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel 

Processing 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Wisconsin’s 

proposed SIP Revision? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline. 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

In May 2008, EPA finalized 

regulations to implement the NSR 

Implementation Rule for PM2.5 in the 

PSD and Nonattainment NSR (NNSR) 

programs (2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule). The 

regulation included the creation of the 

major source threshold, significant 

emissions rate and offset ratios for PM2.5

and the identification of PM2.5

precursors. Additionally, the rule 

required states to consider emissions 

which may condense to form particulate 

matter at ambient temperatures, known 

as condensables, in permitting decisions 

by January 1, 2011. 

WDNR submitted revisions to its PSD 

and NNSR programs that were intended 

to address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule in 

October 2010. On October 29, 2012, EPA 

finalized a narrow disapproval of 

provisions of Wisconsin’s infrastructure 

SIP submittal that were intended to 

identify precursors to PM2.5 and identify 

PM2.5 and PM10 condensables (see 77 FR 

65478), because the submittal lacked 

specific references to condensables for 

PM2.5 and PM10 for applicability 

determinations and permitting 

emissions limits, consistent with the 

2008 NSR Rule. 

On May 12, 2011, and on March 5, 

2012, WDNR submitted revisions to its 

SIP to comply with the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Rule. On July 25, 2013, EPA finalized 

disapproval of Wisconsin’s submissions 

because the submissions did not 

explicitly define the precursors of PM2.5, 

nor did they contain the prescribed 

language to ensure that condensables 

are to be regulated within the PM2.5 and 

PM10 emission limits in Wisconsin’s 

PSD and NNSR programs. (see 78 FR 

44881) 

The infrastructure SIP requirements 

contained in sections 110(a)(1) and (2) 

of the CAA 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. States 

are required to submit infrastructure 

SIPs to ensure that their SIPs provide for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Under section 110(a)(2)(C), states are 

required to include a program for the 

regulation of construction of new or 

modified stationary sources to meet new 

NSR requirements under the PSD and 

NNSR programs, and EPA evaluates, in 

determining whether states have 

satisfied these requirements, the 

following: (i) Provisions that explicitly 

identify oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a 

precursor to ozone in the PSD program; 

(ii) identification of precursors to PM2.5

and the identification of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables in the PSD program; (iii) 

PM2.5 increments in the PSD program; 

and, (iv) greenhouse gas permitting and 

the ‘‘Tailoring Rule.’’ This section also 

requires states to demonstrate that their 

existing SIPs meet current EPA 

requirements with respect to the NSR 

program. For example, states must adopt 

definitions that are identical to, or more 

stringent than, EPA’s definitions. Of the 

structural PSD elements in the context 

of infrastructure SIPs, today’s 

rulemaking only addresses Wisconsin’s 

satisfaction of provisions that explicitly 

identify precursors to PM2.5, and the 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables. 

The final disapproval of the 

submission to address the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Rule and the final partial 

disapproval of the infrastructure SIP 

triggered the requirement under section 

110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 

two years from the effective dates of the 

disapprovals, unless the state corrects 

the deficiencies and the Administrator 

approves the plan or plan revision 

before the Administrator promulgates 

such FIP. 

III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel 

Processing 

On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted 

a draft SIP revision request to EPA to 

revise portions of its PSD and NNSR 

programs to address deficiencies 

identified in EPA’s previous partial 

infrastructure SIP disapproval. On April 

15, 2014, WDNR submitted a 

supplement to its request with 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 36691 

additional information to support its 

submittal. Since the rules WDNR 

submitted on March 12, 2014, are 

consistent with the Federal PSD rules, 

final approval of this SIP revision will 

resolve the deficiencies previously 

identified by EPA in its October 29, 

2012, partial disapproval and July 25, 

2013, disapproval. Wisconsin submitted 

revisions to its rules NR 400, 405, and 

408 of the Wisconsin Administrative 

Code. The submittal requests that EPA 

approve the following revised rules into 

Wisconsin’s SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) 

and (124); (2) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and 

b. and 6; (3) NR 405.02(25i)(a), (ag) and 

(ar); (4) 405.02(27)(a)5m; and (5) NR 

408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b. and 6. At this 

time EPA is only proposing to take 

action on the portions that pertain to the 

identification of precursors to PM2.5 and 

identification of PM2.5 and PM10

condensables. Specifically, today’s 

proposed rulemaking is limited to the 

following provisions: (1) NR 

400.02(123m) and (124); (2) NR 

405.02(25i)(ag); (3) NR 405.02(25i)(ar)2. 

and 3.; and, (4) 405.02(27)(a)5m. EPA 

proposed approval of the remainder of 

WDNR’s submission as it pertains to 

NOX as a precursor to ozone and the 

definition of major modification in a 

May 2, 2014 proposed approval (79 FR 

25063). 

Because portions of this draft SIP 

revision are not yet state-effective, 

Wisconsin requested that EPA ‘‘parallel 

process’’ the SIP revision. Under this 

procedure, the EPA Regional Office 

works closely with the state while 

developing new or revised regulations. 

Generally, the state submits a copy of 

the proposed regulation or other 

revisions to EPA before concluding its 

rulemaking process. EPA reviews this 

proposed state action and prepares a 

proposed rulemaking action. EPA 

publishes this proposed rulemaking in 

the Federal Register and solicits public 

comment in approximately the same 

timeframe during which the state 

finalizes its rulemaking process. 

After Wisconsin submits the formal 

state-effective SIP revision request, EPA 

will prepare a final rulemaking action 

for the SIP revision. If changes are made 

to the SIP revision after EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking, such changes must be 

acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA may be obliged to 

repropose the action. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Wisconsin’s proposed SIP revision? 

EPA has evaluated WDNR’s proposed 

revision to the Wisconsin SIP in 

accordance with the Federal 

requirements governing state permitting 

programs. The revisions described in 

section III above are intended to update 

the Wisconsin SIP to comply with the 

current rules and address deficiencies 

identified by EPA in the its previous SIP 

disapprovals. As discussed below, EPA 

is proposing to approve these revisions 

because they meet Federal 

requirements. 

The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule finalized 

several new requirements for SIPS to 

address sources that emit direct PM2.5

and other pollutants that contribute to 

secondary PM2.5 formation. One of these 

requirements is for PSD permits to 

address pollutants responsible for the 

secondary formation of PM2.5, otherwise 

known as precursors. In the 2008 PM2.5

NSR Rule, EPA identified precursors to 

PM2.5 for the PSD program to be sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and NOX (unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

NOX emissions in an area are not a 

significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations). The 

2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule also specifies that 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are 

not considered to be precursors to PM2.5

in the PSD program unless the state 

demonstrates to the Administrator’s 

satisfaction or EPA demonstrates that 

emissions of VOCs in an area are 

significant contributors to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. 

The explicit references to SO2, NOX, 

and VOCs as they pertain to secondary 

PM2.5 formation are codified at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(49)(i)(b) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b). As part of identifying 

pollutants that are precursors to PM2.5,

the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule also required 

states to revise the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ as it relates to a net 

emissions increase or the potential of a 

source to emit pollutants. Specifically, 

40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i) define ‘‘significant’’ for 

PM2.5 to mean the following emissions 

rates: 10 tons per year (tpy) of direct 

PM2.5; 40 tpy of SO2; and 40 tpy of NOX

(unless the state demonstrates to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction or EPA 

demonstrates that NOX emissions in an 

area are not a significant contributor to 

that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations). WDNR has revised the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR air 

contaminant’’ for the PSD program in 

405.02(25i)(ar)2. and 3., consistent with 

EPA’s own PSD regulations. WDNR has 

also revised its PSD significant emission 

rates to include PM2.5 and its precursors 

in NR 405.02(27)(a)5m, consistent with 

EPA’s PSD regulations. 

The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule did not 

require states to immediately account 

for gases that could condense to form 

particulate matter, known as 

condensables, in PM2.5 and PM10

emission limits in PSD permits. Instead, 

EPA determined that states had to 

account for PM2.5 and PM10

condensables for applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

emissions limitations for PM2.5 and 

PM10 in PSD permits beginning on or 

after January 1, 2011. This requirement 

is codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). WDNR’s 

revisions, specifically at NR 

400.02(123m) and (124) and NR 

405.02(25i)(ag), are consistent with the 

PSD requirements obligated by the 2008 

PM2.5 NSR Rule as they relate to PM2.5

and PM10 condensables. 

The 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule also 

codified requirements for PM2.5 in the 

NNSR program. When WDNR initially 

submitted revisions to its SIP meant to 

address the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Rule, the 

Milwaukee-Racine area was designated 

as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 24- 

hour NAAQS, and WDNR submitted 

rules pertaining to NNSR in addition to 

PSD. Thus, EPA’s disapproval of this 

submission created an obligation for 

WDNR to address the deficiencies 

identified in both the PSD and NNSR 

programs. On April 22, 2014, EPA 

finalized approval of Wisconsin’s 

request to redesignate the MilwaukeeRacine PM2.5 area to attainment for the 

2006 PM2.5 24-hour NAAQS. As a result 

there are no areas designated as 

nonattainment for PM2.5 located in 

Wisconsin. Since there are no areas 

designated as nonattainment for PM2.5

in Wisconsin, Wisconsin is no longer 

obligated to submit a NNSR plan for 

PM2.5 and there is no longer a FIP 

obligation for nonattainment NSR. 

Should an area be designated as 

nonattainment for PM2.5, Wisconsin will 

be required to revise its rules to include 

a plan to address PM2.5 in NNSR. 

Wisconsin’s requested revisions are 

consistent with the applicable 

requirements found in Federal 

regulations; therefore EPA is proposing 

to approve the requested revisions. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

revisions to Wisconsin rules NR 400, 

and NR 405 submitted by the State on 

March 12, 2014, and April 15, 2014, for 

approval into the SIP. The revisions 

submitted, described in section III, 

above, are consistent with Federal 

regulations governing state permitting 

programs. See section IV, above. EPA is 

also soliciting comment on this 

proposed approval. If EPA finalizes this 

proposed approval of WDNR’s requested 

revisions, the FIP clocks started by 

EPA’s October 29, 2012, narrow 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36692 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

disapproval and July 25, 2013, 

disapproval will stop. 

VI. 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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

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, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 17, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15284 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0989; FRL–9912–88- 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of 

Lake and Porter Counties to 

Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour 

Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to disapprove a 

December 5, 2012, request from the state 

of Indiana to redesignate Lake and 

Porter Counties to attainment of the 

2008 eight-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS 

or standard) because Indiana has not 

demonstrated that the ChicagoNaperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin 

(IL–IN–WI) ozone nonattainment area 

(Chicago nonattainment area), which 

includes Lake and Porter Counties, has 

attained this NAAQS. EPA proposes to 

take no action on Indiana’s ozone 

maintenance plan and Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs), submitted 

with Indiana’s ozone redesignation 

request, since approval of these State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) components 

is contingent on the attainment of the 

ozone standard. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–RO5– 

OAR–2012–0989, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Mooney.John@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

• Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

• Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Air 

Programs Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th Floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0989. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

and viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS