Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41439 

1PM2.5 refers to particulate matter of 2.5 microns 

or less in diameter, oftentimes referred to as ‘‘fine’’ 

particles. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888; FRL–9913–59– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin; 

Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve elements of state 

implementation plan (SIP) submissions 

from Michigan and Wisconsin while 

taking final action to approve some 

elements and disapprove other elements 

of SIP submissions from Illinois and 

Minnesota regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 lead 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(2008 Pb NAAQS). The infrastructure 

requirements 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. Illinois 

and Minnesota already administer 

federally promulgated regulations that 

address the final disapprovals described 

in today’s rulemaking. Therefore, these 

two states are not obligated to submit 

new or additional regulations to EPA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0888. 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., Confidential Business Information 

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 U.S. 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 Andy Chang at (312) 

886–0258 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

proposed rulemaking associated with 

this final action was published on May 

13, 2014, and EPA received two 

comment letters during the comment 

period, which ended on June 12, 2014. 

One of the letters supported EPA’s 

proposed actions, and the concerns 

raised in the other letter, as well as 

EPA’s response, will be addressed in 

this final action. 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

B. Why did the states make these SIP 

submissions? 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews. 

I. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

A. What state SIP submissions does this 

rulemaking address? 

This rulemaking addresses 

submissions from the following states in 

EPA Region 5: Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (Illinois EPA); 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ); Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA); and Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR). The states submitted their 

2008 Pb NAAQS infrastructure SIPs on 

the following dates: Illinois—December 

31, 2012; Michigan—April 3, 2012, and 

supplemented on August 9, 2013, and 

September 19, 2013; Minnesota—June 

19, 2012; and, Wisconsin—July 26, 

2012. 

B. Why did the states make these SIP 

submissions? 

Under sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit 

infrastructure SIPs to ensure that their 

SIPs provide for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement of the 

NAAQS, including the 2008 Pb NAAQS. 

These submissions must contain any 

revisions needed for meeting the 

applicable SIP requirements of section 

110(a)(2), or certifications that their 

existing SIPs for Pb and ozone already 

meet those requirements. 

EPA highlighted this statutory 

requirement in an October 2, 2007, 

guidance document entitled ‘‘Guidance 

on SIP Elements Required Under 

Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 

8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ (2007 

Memo). On September 25, 2009, EPA 

issued an additional guidance document 

pertaining to the 2006 PM2.51 NAAQS 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements 

Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS)’’ (2009 Memo), 

followed by the October 14, 2011, 

‘‘Guidance on infrastructure SIP 

Elements Required Under Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)’’ (2011 Memo). Most recently, 

EPA issued ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2)’’ on September 13, 

2013 (2013 Memo). The SIP submissions 

referenced in this rulemaking pertain to 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2), and primarily address 

the 2008 Pb NAAQS. To the extent that 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program is 

comprehensive and non-NAAQS 

specific, a narrow evaluation of other 

NAAQS, such as the 1997 ozone and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS will be included in 

the appropriate sections. 

C. What is the scope of this rulemaking? 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin that address 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

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

2008 Pb NAAQS. The requirement for 

states to make a SIP submission of this 

type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states 

must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 

years (or such shorter period as the 

Administrator may prescribe) after the 

promulgation of a national primary 

ambient air quality standard (or any 

revision thereof),’’ and these SIP 

submissions are to provide for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2The PM2.5 increments and associated 

implementation rules in question arise from EPA’s 

October 20, 2010, final rule for the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)— 

Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)’’. 

3PM10 refers to particles with diameters between 

2.5 and 10 microns, oftentimes referred to as 

‘‘coarse’’ particles. 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions. 

Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses 

the term to distinguish this particular 

type of SIP submission from 

submissions that are intended to satisfy 

other SIP requirements under the CAA, 

such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or 

‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to 

address the nonattainment planning 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions 

required by EPA rule to address the 

visibility protection requirements of 

CAA section 169A, and nonattainment 

new source review (NNSR) permit 

program submissions to address the 

permit requirements of CAA, title I, part 

D. 

As described in EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR 27241), 

this rulemaking will not cover three 

substantive areas that are not integral to 

acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission: (i) Existing provisions 

related to excess emissions during 

periods of start-up, shutdown, or 

malfunction at sources, that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related 

to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that purport to permit 

revisions to SIP approved emissions 

limits with limited public process or 

without requiring further approval by 

EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’); and, (iii) existing 

provisions for PSD programs that may 

be inconsistent with current 

requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final NSR 

Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186 

(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 

FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Instead, EPA has the 

authority to address each one of these 

substantive areas in separate 

rulemaking. Additionally, the history, 

interpretation, and rationale related to 

infrastructure SIP requirements can be 

found in our May 13, 2014, proposed 

rule entitled, ‘‘Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS’’ in the section, ‘‘What is the 

scope of this rulemaking?’’ (see 79 FR 

27241 at 27242–27245). 

II. What is our response to comments 

received on the proposed rulemaking? 

The public comment period for EPA’s 

proposed actions with respect to each 

state’s satisfaction of the infrastructure 

SIP requirements for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS closed on June 12, 2014. EPA 

received two comment letters, one of 

which was in support of our proposed 

actions. A synopsis of the adverse 

comments contained in the other letter, 

as well as EPA’s response, is discussed 

below. 

Comment: The commenter noted that 

EPA did not address Wisconsin’s 

compliance with the requirements to 

incorporate PM2.5 increments 2 into its 

SIP. The commenter asserted that 

because Wisconsin has failed to 

incorporate the increments, EPA needs 

to disapprove the applicable 

infrastructure SIP PSD sub-element for 

the PM2.5 increments, and begin a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

clock. 

Response: In EPA’s May 13, 2014, 

proposed rulemaking, we stated that we 

were not taking action on Wisconsin’s 

satisfaction of the applicable PSD 

requirements, e.g., incorporating the 

PM2.5 increments found in section 

110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), or 

section 110(a)(2)(J) (see 79 FR 27241 at 

27246). Instead, EPA stated that it 

would address Wisconsin’s compliance 

with these requirements in a separate 

rulemaking. In other words, this 

comment is not germane to today’s 

rulemaking. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

For the reasons discussed in our May 

13, 2014, proposed rulemaking and in 

the above response to a public 

comment, EPA is taking final action to 

approve, as proposed, most elements of 

submissions from Illinois, Michigan, 

Minnesota, and Wisconsin certifying 

that their current SIPs are sufficient to 

meet the required infrastructure 

elements under sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. We are also 

taking final action to disapprove some 

elements of submissions from Illinois 

and Minnesota related to each state’s 

PSD program. As described in the 

proposed rulemaking, both of these 

states already administer Federally 

promulgated PSD regulations through 

delegation, and therefore, no practical 

effect is associated with today’s final 

disapproval of those elements (see 79 

FR 27241 at 27256–27257). 

To clarify, EPA is taking final action 

to disapprove the infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Illinois and 

Minnesota with respect to certain PSD 

requirements including: (i) Provisions 

that adequate address the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS; (ii) the explicit identification 

of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) as a 

precursor to ozone consistent with the 

‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule to 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter, and 

Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline’’; (iii) the 

explicit identification of sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) and NOX as PM2.5 precursors (and 

the significant emissions rates for direct 

PM2.5, and SO2 and NOX as its 

precursors), and the regulation of PM2.5

and PM10 3 condensables, consistent 

with the requirements of the final rule 

on the ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’; (iv) the PM2.5

increments and associated 

implementation rules consistent with 

the final rule on the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for 

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)—Increments, 

Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC)’’; and, (v) permitting of 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting sources 

at the Federal Tailoring Rule thresholds. 

EPA is also taking final action to 

disapprove the infrastructure SIP 

submissions from Illinois and 

Minnesota with respect to the 

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

related to interstate pollution 

abatement. Specifically, this section 

requires states with PSD programs have 

provisions requiring a new or modified 

source to notify neighboring states of the 

potential impacts from the source, 

consistent with the requirements of 

section 126(a). 

However, Illinois and Minnesota have 

no further obligations to EPA because 

Federally promulgated rules, 

promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21 are in 

effect in each of these states. EPA has 

delegated the authority to Illinois and 

Minnesota to administer these rules, 

which include provisions related to PSD 

and interstate pollution abatement. This 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41441 

final disapproval for Illinois and 

Minnesota for these infrastructure SIP 

requirements will not result in sanctions 

under section 179(a), nor will it obligate 

EPA to promulgate a FIP within two 

years of final action if the states do not 

submit revisions to their PSD SIPs 

addressing these deficiencies. Instead, 

Illinois and Minnesota are already 

subject to the Federally promulgated 

PSD regulations, and both states 

administer these regulations via EPA’s 

delegated authority. 

EPA’s final actions for each state’s 

satisfaction of infrastructure SIP 

requirements, by element of section 

110(a)(2) are contained in the table 

below. 

Element IL MI MN WI 

(A): Emission limits and other control measures ..................................................................... A A A A 

(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system .............................................................. A A A A 

(C)1: Enforcement of SIP measures ....................................................................................... A A A A

(C)2: PSD program for Pb ....................................................................................................... D,* A D,* NA 

(C)3: NOX as a precursor to ozone for PSD ........................................................................... D,* A D,* NA 

(C)4: PM2.5 Precursors/PM2.5 and PM10 condensables for PSD ............................................. D,* A D,* NA 

(C)5: PM2.5 Increments ............................................................................................................ D,* A D,* NA 

(C)5: GHG permitting thresholds in PSD regulations .............................................................. D,* A D,* NA 

(D)1: Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with maintenance of NAAQS .............................. A A A A 

(D)2: PSD ................................................................................................................................. **   **  

(D)3: Visibility Protection .......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(D)4: Interstate Pollution Abatement ....................................................................................... D,* A D,* A 

(D)5: International Pollution Abatement ................................................................................... A A A A 

(E): Adequate resources .......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(E): State boards ...................................................................................................................... NA NA NA NA 

(F): Stationary source monitoring system ................................................................................ A A A A

(G): Emergency power ............................................................................................................. A A A A 

(H): Future SIP revisions ......................................................................................................... A A A A 

(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under part D .................................................. NA NA NA NA 

(J)1: Consultation with government officials ............................................................................ A A A A

(J)2: Public notification ............................................................................................................. A A A A 

(J)3: PSD ................................................................................................................................. **   **  

(J)4: Visibility protection ........................................................................................................... + + + + 

(K): Air quality modeling and data ........................................................................................... A A A A 

(L): Permitting fees .................................................................................................................. A A A A 

(M): Consultation and participation by affected local entities .................................................. A A A A 

In the above table, the key is as 

follows: 

A ....... Approve. 

NA .... No Action/Separate Rulemaking. 

D ....... Disapprove. 

+ ....... Not germane to infrastructure SIPs. 

* ........ Federally promulgated rules in place. 

** ....... Previously discussed in element (C). 

IV. 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

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). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
41442 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

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 15, 

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, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 2, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

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. 

■ 2. Section 52.745 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 52.745 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(d) Approval and Disapproval—In a 

December 31, 2012, submittal, Illinois 

certified that the State has satisfied the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of 

section 110(a)(2)(A) through (H), and (J) 

through (M) for the 2008 lead (Pb) 

NAAQS. EPA is not taking action on the 

state board requirements of (E)(ii). 

Although EPA is disapproving portions 

of Illinois’ submission addressing the 

prevention of significant deterioration, 

Illinois continues to implement the 

Federally promulgated rules for this 

purpose as they pertain to (C), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), and (J). 

■ 3. In § 52.1170, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry at the 

end of the table for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA Approval date Comments 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 lead (Pb) 

NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 4/3/2012, 8/9/

213.

7/16/2014, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the state board requirements of (E)(ii). 

We will address these requirements in a separate action. 

■ 4. In § 52.1220, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry at the 

end of the table for ‘‘Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

lead (Pb) NAAQS’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory 

SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA Approved date Comments 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements 

for the 2008 lead (Pb) 

NAAQS.

Statewide .......... 6/19/2012 (submittal date).7/16/2014, [INSERT 

Federal Register CITATION].

This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A),(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are not taking action on the state board requirements of (E)(ii). 

We will address these requirements in a separate action. Although EPA is disapproving portions of Minnesota’s submission addressing the 

prevention of significant deterioration, Minnesota 

continues to implement the Federally promulgated rules for this purpose as they pertain to 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J). 

■ 5. Section 52.2591 is amended by 

adding paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2591 Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(f) Approval—In a July 26, 2012, 

submittal, Wisconsin certified that the 

State has satisfied the infrastructure SIP 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) 

through (H), and (J) through (M) for the 

2008 lead (Pb) NAAQS. We are not 

taking action on the prevention of 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 41443 

significant deterioration requirements 

related to section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), 

and (J), and the state board requirements 

of (E)(ii). We will address these 

requirements in a separate action. 

[FR Doc. 2014–16553 Filed 7–15–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590; FRL–9911–54] 

Coco alkyl dimethyl amines; 

Exemption From the Requirement of a 

Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of coco alkyl 

dimethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788– 

93–0) when used as an inert ingredient 

(emulsifier) in pesticide formulations 

applied to crops preharvest at a 

concentration not to exceed 0.5% by 

weight. Technology Sciences Group 

Inc., 1150 18th St. NW., Suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20036, submitted a 

petition to EPA under the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 

requesting establishment of an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance. This regulation eliminates the 

need to establish a maximum 

permissible level for residues of coco 

alkyl dimethyl amines. 

DATES: This regulation is effective July 

16, 2014. Objections and requests for 

hearings must be received on or before 

September 15, 2014, and must be filed 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also 

Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION). 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0590, is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 

Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. The 

Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 

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

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPP 

Docket is (703) 305–5805. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois 

Rossi, Registration Division (7505P), 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–7090; email address: 

RDFNotices@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

B. How can I get electronic access to 

other related information? 

You may access a frequently updated 

electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 

through the Government Printing 

Office’s e-CFR site at http://

www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/

40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test 

guidelines referenced in this document 

electronically, please go to http://

www.epa.gov/ocspp and select ‘‘Test 

Methods and Guidelines.’’ 

C. How can I file an objection or hearing 

request? 

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 

U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an 

objection to any aspect of this regulation 

and may also request a hearing on those 

objections. You must file your objection 

or request a hearing on this regulation 

in accordance with the instructions 

provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure 

proper receipt by EPA, you must 

identify docket ID number EPA–HQ– 

OPP–2013–0590 in the subject line on 

the first page of your submission. All 

objections and requests for a hearing 

must be in writing, and must be 

received by the Hearing Clerk on or 

before September 15, 2014. Addresses 

for mail and hand delivery of objections 

and hearing requests are provided in 40 

CFR 178.25(b). 

In addition to filing an objection or 

hearing request with the Hearing Clerk 

as described in 40 CFR part 178, please 

submit a copy of the filing (excluding 

any Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. 

Information not marked confidential 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be 

disclosed publicly by EPA without prior 

notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your 

objection or hearing request, identified 

by docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPP– 

2013–0590, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be CBI or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at 

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

II. Petition for Exemption 

In the Federal Register of October 25, 

2013 (78 FR 63938) (FRL–9901–96), 

EPA issued a document pursuant to 

FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C. 346a, 

announcing the filing of a pesticide 

petition (PP IN–10622) by Technology 

Sciences Group Inc., 1150 18th St. NW., 

Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036. The 

petition requested that 40 CFR 180.920 

be amended by establishing an 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance for residues of coco alkyl 

dimethyl amines (CAS Reg. No. 61788– 

93–0) when used as an inert ingredient 

(emulsifier) in pesticide formulations 

applied to crops preharvest at a 

concentration not to exceed 0.5% by 

weight. 

That document referenced a summary 

of the petition prepared by Technology 

Sciences Group Inc., the petitioner, 

which is available in the docket, 

http://www.regulations.gov. There were 

no comments received in response to 

the notice of filing. 

Based upon review of the data 

supporting the petition, EPA has 

approved of the use of coco alkyl 

dimethyl amines at a maximum 

concentration not to exceed 0.5% by 

weight in the final end-use formulation. 

This limitation is based on the Agency’s 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES