31046 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 29, 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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: May 16, 2014. 

Judith A. Enck, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

■ 2. In § 52.1670, add a new entry at the 

end of the table in paragraph (e) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED NEW YORK NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Action/SIP element Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

New York 

submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Approval of CO maintenance 

plan, CO motor vehicle 

budgets, and 2007 CO base 

year emissions inventory.

New York portion of the New 

York-Northern New JerseyLong Island (NYCMA) CO 

area.

05/09/13 5/30/14 [insert page number 

where the document begins].

This is the 2nd 10-year CO 

maintenance plan for the 

New York portion of the 

NYCMA. 

■ 3. In § 52.1682, add paragraph (d) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.1682 Control strategy: Carbon 

monoxide. 

* * * * * 

(d) Approval—The May 9, 2013 

revision to the carbon monoxide (CO) 

maintenance plan for the New York 

portion of the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NYCMA, CO area. 

This revision contains a second ten-year 

maintenance plan that demonstrates 

continued attainment of the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO 

through the year 2022, 2007 CO base 

year emissions inventory and CO motor 

vehicle emissions budgets through the 

maintenance period. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12465 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0495; FRL–9909–35– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions for Permitting of Particulate 

Matter With Diameters Less Than or 

Equal to 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31047 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving revisions to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality 

(TCEQ) on May 19, 2011. The May 19, 

2011, SIP submission adopts revisions 

to the Texas General Air Quality 

Definitions and Permits by Rule (PBR) 

program consistent with certain federal 

rules implementing the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). EPA finds that the 

Texas Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) New Source Review 

(NSR) SIP meets all EPA PM2.5 PSD SIP 

rules. These rules include permitting 

components such as the PM2.5

precursors of sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxides, condensables, 

significant emissions rates (SER), and 

increment. EPA is approving these 

actions under section 110 and part C of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0495. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below to make an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–R), telephone (214) 665–2115, 

email address wiley.adina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

The background for today’s action is 

discussed in detail in our February 14, 

2014 proposal (79 FR 8916). In that 

notice, we proposed to approve 

revisions to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC 

Sections 101.1 and 106.4 submitted on 

May 19, 2011, for the implementation of 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

also proposed to find that the Texas PSD 

NSR SIP met the PM2.5 PSD 

requirements contained in the federal 

regulations as of December 9, 2013, 

including regulation of NOX and SO2 as 

PM2.5 precursors, regulation of 

condensables, and PM2.5 increments. 

II. Response to Comments 

We received comments from the 

Texas Industry Project (TIP) on our 

February 14, 2014 proposal. The 

comments we received can be accessed 

in their entirety from the 

www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0495). The 

TIP generally expressed support for our 

proposed rulemaking, but did request 

clarification on certain issues. 

Following is a summary of the 

comments submitted from TIP and 

EPA’s response. 

Comment: TIP requests that EPA 

acknowledge that ammonia is not 

regulated as a precursor for PM2.5 for 

PSD permitting under the Texas SIP. 

The commenter also presented 

information about EPA’s treatment of 

ammonia and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) as precursors to 

PM2.5 in the federal PSD Program. 

Specifically, the commenter referenced 

EPA’s May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule; the lack of a 

significant emission rate for VOC or 

ammonia in the federal PSD rules at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i); and the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ where 

VOC is presumed out and ammonia is 

not mentioned at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49). 

Response: As discussed below, EPA 

agrees with the commenter’s conclusion 

that this approval action of the Texas 

PM2.5 SIP will not result in regulating 

ammonia or VOCs as precursors to 

PM2.5. Federal rules do not require the 

Texas PSD program to regulate VOCs or 

ammonia as precursors to PM2.5. 

In the May 16, 2008 NSR PM2.5

Implementation Rule, the EPA finalized 

revisions to the PSD program to govern 

regulation of SO2, NOX and VOCs as 

regulated NSR pollutants. For purposes 

of PSD, SO2 is a regulated NSR pollutant 

under all circumstances; NOX is 

presumptively regulated as an NSR 

pollutant, unless the State or EPA 

demonstrates that emissions of NOX

from sources in a specific area are not 

a significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations; and 

VOCs are presumptively not regulated 

as an NSR pollutant, unless the State or 

EPA demonstrates that emissions of 

VOCs from sources in a specific area are 

a significant contributor to that area’s 

ambient PM2.5 concentrations. See 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b)–(d), 

52.21(b)(50)(i)(b)–(d). The EPA did not 

include ammonia as a regulated NSR 

pollutant for purposes of PSD. 

As to nonattainment NSR, States were 

not required to regulate ammonia as a 

PM2.5 precursor for a specific 

nonattainment area unless either the 

state or EPA provided a satisfactory 

demonstration that ammonia emissions 

from sources in a specific 

nonattainment area are a significant 

contributor to that area’s ambient PM2.5

concentrations. See 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii)(C)(4). However, the 

EPA clarified that ‘‘the action of any 

State identifying ammonia emissions as 

a significant contributor to a 

nonattainment area’s PM2.5

concentrations, or our approval of a 

nonattainment SIP doing so, does not 

make ammonia a regulated NSR 

pollutant for the purposes of PSD in any 

attainment or unclassifiable areas 

nationally.’’ See 73 FR 28321, 28330. 

Texas was therefore not required by 

the EPA to address ammonia in its PSD 

regulations and there is no indication 

that Texas intended to identify 

ammonia as a regulated NSR pollutant 

for purposes of PSD permitting for 

PM2.5. Texas also did not revise its PSD 

regulations to regulate VOCs as a PM2.5

precursor, as neither Texas nor the EPA 

demonstrated that emissions of VOCs 

from sources in the State significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

State. The EPA is approving the Texas 

SIP as regulating only SO2 and NOX as 

PM2.5 precursors for purposes of PSD 

permitting. No changes were made to 

our final rule as a result of this 

comment. 

III. Final Action 

We are approving the May 19, 2011, 

submittal for the State of Texas revising 

30 TAC Sections 101.1(25), (75), (76), 

and (78) and 106.4(a)(1) and (a)(4) for 

the implementation of the 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and non-substantive 

revisions to 30 TAC 106.4(a)(2) and (c) 

as proposed. We also find that the Texas 

PSD NSR SIP satisfies the PM2.5 PSD 

requirements contained in federal 

regulations as of December 9, 2013. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

and part C of the Act. 

Also in this action we are making a 

ministerial revision to the Texas SIP to 

reflect a recent EPA final approval of the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
31048 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Texas PSD program. In Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52, 

§ 52.2303, paragraph (a)(2) is corrected 

to reflect the January 6, 2014, Federal 

Register EPA final action (79 FR 551) 

that replaced two provisions of the 

Texas PSD Supplement, paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of Board Order 87–09. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act. 

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. 

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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 29, 2014. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposed 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, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 16, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

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 SS—Texas 

■ 2. In § 52.2270 (c), the table titled 

‘‘EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN 

THE TEXAS SIP’’ is amended by 

revising the entries for Sections 101.1 

and 106.4 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 101—General Air Quality Rules 

Subchapter A—General Rules 

Section 101.1 .......................... Definitions .............................. 04/20/2011 05/30/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 31049 

EPA APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE TEXAS SIP—Continued 

State citation Title/subject 

State 

approval/ 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 106—Permits by Rule 

Subchapter A—General Requirements 

*******

Section 106.4 .......................... Requirements for Permitting 

by Rule.

04/20/2011 05/30/2014 [Insert FR page 

number where document 

begins].

*******

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 52.2303 is amended by adding 

paragraph (a)(1)(x) and revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows. 

§ 52.2303 Significant deterioration of air 

quality. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(x) June 30, 2014 (as revised by the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality on April 20, 2011 and submitted 

on May 19, 2011) to address PSD 

permitting requirements for PM2.5

promulgated by EPA on May 16, 2008, 

October 20, 2010, and December 9, 

2013. 

(2) The Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Supplement 

document, submitted October 26, 1987 

(as adopted by the TACB on July 17, 

1987) and revised on July 2, 2010, to 

remove paragraphs (7)(a) and (7)(b). See 

EPA’s final approval action on January 

6, 2014. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–12474 Filed 5–29–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0455: FRL–9911–64– 

Region–10] 

Adequacy Determination for the Kent, 

Seattle, and Tacoma, Washington PM10

State Implementation Plan for 

Transportation Conformity Purposes 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of adequacy 

determination. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is notifying the public of 

its finding that the Kent, Seattle, and 

Tacoma second 10-year limited 

maintenance plan (LMP) for particulate 

matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 

a nominal 10 microns or less (PM10) is 

adequate for transportation conformity 

purposes. The LMP was submitted to 

the EPA by the State of Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology or the 

State) on November 25, 2013. As a result 

of our adequacy finding, regional 

emissions analyses will no longer be 

required as part of the transportation 

conformity demonstrations for PM10 for 

the Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma areas. 

DATES: This finding is effective June 16, 

2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

finding will be available at the EPA’s 

conformity Web site: http://

www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/

transconf/adequacy.htm. You may also 

contact Dr. Karl Pepple, U.S. EPA, 

Region 10 (OAWT–107), 1200 Sixth 

Ave., Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101; (206) 

553–1778; or by email at pepple.karl@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

action provides notice of the EPA’s 

adequacy finding regarding the second 

10-year PM10 limited maintenance plan 

for Kent, Seattle, and Tacoma (LMP) for 

purposes of transportation conformity. 

The EPA’s finding was made pursuant 

to the adequacy review process for 

implementation plan submissions 

delineated at 40 CFR 93.118(f)(1) under 

which the EPA reviews the adequacy of 

a state implementation plan (SIP) 

submission prior to the EPA’s final 

action on the implementation plan. The State submitted the LMP to the 

EPA on November 25, 2013. Pursuant to 

40 CFR 93.118(f)(1), the EPA notified 

the public of its receipt of this plan and 

its review for an adequacy 

determination on the EPA’s Web site 

and requested public comment by no 

later than January 10, 2014. 

Additionally, the EPA announced the 

public comment period on the entire 

LMP in the Federal Register on 

December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78311). The 

EPA received a request to extend the 

comment period and announced a 

comment period extension to March 10, 

2014 in a notice published on February 

6, 2014 (79 FR 7126). The EPA received 

no comments on the on-road vehicle 

portion of the plan during the comment 

period. As part of our review, we also 

reviewed comments on the LMP 

submitted to the State of Washington 

during the State’s public process. There 

were no adverse comments directed at 

the on-road portion of the plan that 

were submitted during the State hearing 

process regarding the new Plan. 

However, the EPA did receive adverse 

comments on potential future emissions 

in the non-road portion of the LMP. 

Nevertheless, the EPA believes it is 

appropriate to find this LMP adequate 

for purposes of transportation 

conformity while the EPA continues to 

review the plan and comments received. 

This adequacy finding is not dispositive 

of the EPA’s ultimate approval or 

disapproval of the LMP. 

The EPA notified Ecology in a letter 

dated April 9, 2014 (adequacy letter), 

subsequent to the close of the EPA 

comment period, that the EPA had 

found the LMP to be adequate for use 

for transportation conformity purposes. 

A copy of the adequacy letter and its 

enclosure are available in the docket for 

this action and at the EPA’s conformity 

Web site: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/

stateresources/transconf/adequacy.htm. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 93.109(l), limited 

maintenance plans are not required to 

contain on-road motor vehicle 

emissions budgets. Accordingly, as a 

result of this adequacy finding, regional 

emissions analyses will no longer be 

required as a part of the transportation 

conformity demonstrations for PM10 for 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES