Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 42683 

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 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

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. The benefits of 

the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training 

program have been well established 

over the years through the successful 

completion of similar projects. Grants to 

provide funding for scholars to acquire 

master’s degrees and certificates in the 

rehabilitation specialty areas listed in 

this notice are needed to ensure that 

State VR agencies and related agencies 

have a supply of qualified rehabilitation 

professionals with the skills to help 

individuals with disabilities to achieve 

employment in today’s economy. 

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: July 18, 2014. 

Melody Musgrove, 

Director, Office for Special Education 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–17370 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2014–0333; FRL–9914–11– 

OAR] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

42684 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

SUMMARY: The EPA is partially 

approving and partially disapproving 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submittal from the State of Washington 

(Washington or the State) demonstrating 

that the SIP meets the infrastructure 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

for the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for 

lead on October 15, 2008. The CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIP to ensure that it meets the 

infrastructure requirements necessary to 

implement the new or revised NAAQS. 

On April 14, 2014, Washington certified 

that the Washington SIP meets the 

infrastructure requirements of the CAA 

for purposes of the 2008 lead NAAQS, 

except for those requirements related to 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permitting program 

currently operated under a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). The EPA has 

determined that Washington’s 2008 lead 

SIP is adequate for purposes of the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110, with the exception of the 

requirements related to PSD permitting 

and portions of the interstate transport 

requirements. The EPA finds that the 

SIP deficiencies related to PSD 

permitting, however, have been 

adequately addressed by the existing 

EPA FIP and, therefore, no further 

action is required by Washington or the 

EPA. The EPA will address the 

remaining interstate transport 

requirements in a separate action. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 22, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2014–0333. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the http://

www.regulations.gov Web site. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information or 

other information the disclosure of 

which 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 

EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. The 

EPA requests that 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, hunt.jeff@

epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 

address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On April 14, 2014, Washington 

submitted a certification that the State 

SIP meets the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 

lead NAAQS, except for the 

requirements related to PSD permitting 

and portions of the interstate transport 

requirements. On May 14, 2014, The 

EPA proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the submittal (79 

FR 27533). An explanation of the CAA 

requirements and implementing 

regulations that are met by this SIP 

submittal, a detailed explanation of the 

revision, and the EPA’s reasons for 

approving it were provided in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking, and will not be 

restated here. The public comment 

period for this proposed rule ended on 

June 13, 2014. We did not receive any 

comments on the proposal. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is partially approving the 

April 14, 2014, submittal from 

Washington to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the requirements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the lead 

NAAQS promulgated on October 15, 

2008, except for the requirements 

related to PSD permitting and portions 

of the interstate transport requirements 

as discussed in the proposed 

rulemaking for this action. Specifically, 

we have determined that the current 

EPA-approved Washington SIP meets 

the following CAA section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure elements for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS: (A), (B), (C)—except for those 

elements covered by the PSD FIP, 

(D)(i)(II)—except for those elements 

covered by the PSD FIP, (D)(ii)—except 

for those elements covered by the PSD 

FIP, (E), (F), (G), (H), (J)—except for 

those elements covered by the PSD FIP, 

(K), (L), and (M). As noted in the 

proposed rulemaking, the EPA 

anticipates that there would be no 

adverse consequences to Washington or 

to sources in the State resulting from 

this partial disapproval of the 

infrastructure SIP related to PSD. The 

EPA, likewise, has no additional FIP 

responsibilities as a result of this partial 

disapproval for requirements related to 

PSD. Remaining interstate transport 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 lead 

NAAQS will be addressed in a separate 

action. 

III. 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. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601, et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide the 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). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 141 / Wednesday, July 23, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 42685 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

September 3, 2013. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

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 September 22, 

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, 

Carbon monoxide, Lead, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Sulfur dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 7, 2014. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

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. 

Subpart WW—Washington 

■ 2. In § 52.2470, paragraph (e) is 

amended by adding the entry ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements—2008 Lead 

Standard’’ to Table 2—ATTAINMENT, 

MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS 

under the heading ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport’’ 

after the entry for ‘‘110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements—1997 

ozone standard’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

*******

110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements—2008 Lead 

Standard.

Statewide .......... 4/14/14 7/23/14 [Insert Federal Register citation].This action addresses the following CAA 

elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M). 

*******

[FR Doc. 2014–17243 Filed 7–22–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0495; FRL–9914–17– 

Region 9] 

Interim Final Determination To Stay 

and Defer Sanctions, Clark County 

Department of Air Quality 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is making an interim final 

determination to stay the imposition of 

offset sanctions and to defer the 

imposition of highway sanctions based 

on a proposed approval of a revision to 

the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality (Clark or DEQ) portion of the 

Nevada State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

published elsewhere in this Federal 

Register. The SIP revision concerns six 

permitting rules (referred to as Sections) 

submitted by Clark: Sections 0— 

Definitions, 12.0—Applicability, 

General Requirements and Transition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES