Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21173 

Final Priorities 

We will announce the final priorities 

in a notice in the Federal Register. We 

will determine the final priorities after 

considering responses to this notice and 

other information available to the 

Department. This notice does not 

preclude us from proposing additional 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, subject to meeting 

applicable rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 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 proposed 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 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 these proposed 

priorities only upon a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that these proposed priorities 

are consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action would 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 Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research Projects and 

Centers Program have been well 

established over the years. Projects 

similar to the RRTCs have been 

completed successfully, and the 

proposed priorities will generate new 

knowledge through research. The new 

RRTCs will generate, disseminate, and 

promote the use of new information that 

would improve outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities in the areas 

of community living and participation, 

employment, and health and function. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is not subject to Executive 

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 

CFR Part 79. 

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 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: April 10, 2014. 

Michael K. Yudin, 

Acting Assistant, Secretary for Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08556 Filed 4–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0649; FRL–9909–59– 

Region–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Section 110(a)(2) 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2010 Nitrogen Dioxide National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21174 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the State of 

Maryland pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). Whenever new or revised 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA 

requires states to submit a plan for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of such NAAQS. The plan 

is required to address basic program 

elements, including, but not limited to 

regulatory structure, monitoring, 

modeling, legal authority, and adequate 

resources necessary to assure attainment 

and maintenance of the standards. 

These elements are referred to as 

infrastructure requirements. The State of 

Maryland has made a submittal 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0649 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0649, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, Air 

Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0649. 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 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ruth Knapp, (215) 814–2191, or by 

email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

14, 2013, the Maryland Department of 

the Environment (MDE) submitted a 

revision to its SIP to satisfy the 

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

CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

I. Background 

On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), 

EPA established a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires states to 

submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Specifically, 110(a)(1) requires 

states to submit SIPs meeting the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe, and section 110(a)(2) requires 

states to address specific elements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the newly established or revised 

NAAQS. 

The contents of a SIP submission may 

vary depending upon the data and 

analytical tools available to the state, as 

well as the provisions already contained 

in the state’s SIP at the time in which 

the state develops and submits the 

submission for a new or revised 

NAAQS. States were required to submit 

such SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to 

EPA no later than January 2013. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On August 14, 2013, MDE provided a 

SIP revision to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. This revision 

addresses the following infrastructure 

elements, which EPA is proposing to 

approve: Section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M), or portions thereof. This action 

does not include any proposed action 

on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which 

pertains to the nonattainment 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA, because this element is not 

required to be submitted by the 3-year 

submission deadline of CAA section 

110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a 

separate process if necessary. A detailed 

summary of EPA’s review and rationale 

for approving Maryland’s submittal may 

be found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this proposed 

rulemaking action, which is available 

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0649. 

III. EPA’s Approach To Review 

Infrastructure SIPs 

EPA is acting upon the SIP 

submission from MDE that addresses 

the infrastructure requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2010 

NO2 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 PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21175 

1For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

2See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163—25165, May 12, 2005, (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

5On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

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 

section 110(a)(1) and (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 permit program 

submissions to address the permit 

requirements of CAA, title I, part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the CAA, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 

states must meet all of the infrastructure 

SIP requirements in a single SIP 

submission, and whether EPA must act 

upon such SIP submission in a single 

action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submissions to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submissions 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.5

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) may also arise with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21176 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 

8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 

9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.7 EPA most recently 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets section 

110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure 

SIP submissions need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. 

Accordingly, EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 

statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

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

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including Green House 

Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural 

PSD program requirements do not 

include provisions that are not required 

under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166 but are merely available as an 

option for the state, such as the option 

to provide grandfathering of complete 

permit applications with respect to the 

2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction 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 may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 21177 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, 

June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 

(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 

42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, 

January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

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’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.10 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) because the CAA provides other 

avenues and mechanisms to address 

specific substantive deficiencies in 

existing SIPs. These other statutory tools 

allow EPA to take appropriately tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following infrastructure elements or 

portions thereof of Maryland’s August 

14, 2013 SIP revision: Section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), 

(H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). Maryland’s SIP 

revision provides the basic program 

elements specified in section 110(a)(2) 

necessary to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

V. 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 proposed 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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
21178 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 72 / Tuesday, April 15, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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 proposed rule, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

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

CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the 

State of Maryland, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: April 4, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08490 Filed 4–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2013–0672; FRL–9909–42– 

Region 7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing action to 

approve a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Missouri for the purpose of 

incorporating administrative changes to 

the Missouri rule entitled, ‘‘Municipal 

Solid Waste Landfills’’. EPA is 

proposing to approve this SIP revision 

based on EPA’s finding that the rule is 

as stringent as the rule it replaces and 

fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) for the protection of 

the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in St. Louis. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

May 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2013–0672, by mail to Craig 

Bernstein, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may 

also be submitted electronically or 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Bernstein, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air Planning and 

Development Branch, 11201 Renner 

Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; at 

913–551–7688; or by email at 

Bernstein.craig@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

action and anticipates no relevant 

adverse comments because the revisions 

are administrative and consistent with 

Federal regulations. A detailed rationale 

for the approval is set forth in the direct 

final rule. If no relevant adverse 

comments are received in response to 

this action, no further activity is 

contemplated in relation to this action. 

If EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed action. EPA will not institute 

a second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on part of this rule and if that 

part can be severed from the remainder 

of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 

those parts of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. For 

additional information, see the direct 

final rule which is located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: April 3, 2014. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08339 Filed 4–14–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2014–0145; FRL–9909–52– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Louisiana; Clean Data Determination 

for the Baton Rouge Area for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to find that 

the Baton Rouge, Louisiana marginal 

2008 8-hour ozone nonattainment area 

is currently attaining the 2008 8-hour 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. This proposed 

clean data determination is based upon 

complete, quality assured, certified 

ambient air monitoring data that show 

the area has monitored attainment of the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS during the 

2011–2013 monitoring period, and 

continues to monitor attainment of the 

NAAQS based on preliminary 2014 

data. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before May 15, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ellen Belk, Air Planning Section (6PD– 

L); telephone (214) 665–2164; email 

address: belk.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1