73698 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1The PSD program stems from part C of title I of 

the CAA. 

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 

CFR parts 510, 522, 524, and 529 are 

amended as follows: 

PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 510 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 

353, 360b, 371, 379e. 

§ 510.600 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 510.600, in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry for 

‘‘Eka Chemicals, Inc.’’; and in the table 

in paragraph (c)(2), remove the entry for 

‘‘061088’’. 

PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR 

INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 3. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 522 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

■ 4. In § 522.1145, revise paragraph 

(e)(2) and the heading of paragraph 

(e)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 522.1145 Hyaluronate sodium. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Sponsors. See sponsors in 

§ 510.600(c) of this chapter: 

(i) No. 000859 for use of products 

described in paragraph (e)(1) as in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(ii) No. 064847 for use of product 

described in paragraph (e)(1)(i) as in 

paragraph (e)(3) of this section. 

(3) Conditions of use— 

* * * * * 

PART 524—OPHTHALMIC AND 

TOPICAL DOSAGE FORM NEW 

ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 5. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 524 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

■ 6. In § 524.1146, revise paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (d)(1)(ii); and add paragraph 

(d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 524.1146 Imidacloprid and moxidectin. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Each milliliter of solution contains 

100 mg imidacloprid and 10 mg 

moxidectin for use as in paragraphs 

(d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Indications for use—(A) For the 

prevention of heartworm disease caused 

by Dirofilaria immitis; and the treatment 

and control of intestinal roundworms 

(Toxocara canis and Toxascaris 

leonina), hookworms (Ancylostoma 

caninum and Uncinaria stenocephala), 

and whipworms (Trichuris vulpis); kills 

adult fleas and treats flea infestations 

(Ctenocephalides felis). 

(B) For treatment of Dirofilaria 

immitis circulating microfilariae in 

heartworm-positive dogs and the 

treatment and control of sarcoptic 

mange caused by Sarcoptes scabiei var. 

canis. 

* * * * * 

(3) Ferrets—(i) Amount. Topically 

apply 9.0 mg/lb body weight (20 mg/kg) 

imidacloprid and 0.9 mg/lb (2 mg/kg) 

moxidectin, once a month. 

(ii) Indications for use. For the 

prevention of heartworm disease caused 

by Dirofilaria immitis; kills adult fleas 

(Ctenocephalides felis) and is indicated 

for the treatment of flea infestations on 

ferrets. 

PART 529—CERTAIN OTHER DOSAGE 

FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 

■ 7. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 529 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b. 

§ 529.1150 [Amended] 

■ 8. In paragraph (b) of § 529.1150, 

remove ‘‘061088’’ and in its place add 

‘‘050378’’. 

Dated: December 2, 2013. 

Bernadette Dunham, 

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29234 Filed 12–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605; FRL–9903–84– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR99 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 

Micrometers—Significant Impact 

Levels and Significant Monitoring 

Concentration: Removal of Vacated 

Elements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: On January 22, 2013, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) 

granted a request from the EPA to vacate 

and remand to the EPA portions of two 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) regulations, promulgated in 2010 

under the authority of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), regarding the Significant Impact 

Levels (SILs) for particulate matter less 

than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The Court 

further vacated the portions of the PSD 

regulations establishing a PM2.5

Significant Monitoring Concentration 

(SMC). The EPA is amending its 

regulations to remove the vacated PM2.5

SILs and SMC provisions from the PSD 

regulations in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR). This action is 

exempt from notice-and-comment 

rulemaking because it is ministerial in 

nature. The EPA will initiate a separate 

rulemaking in the future regarding the 

PM2.5 SILs that will address the Court’s 

remand. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 

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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ben Garwood, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (C504–03), U.S. 

EPA, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27709, telephone number (919) 

541–1358, facsimile number (919) 541– 

5509, email: garwood.ben@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this regulation apply to me? 

The entities potentially affected by 

this rule include new and modified 

major stationary sources in all industry 

groups. To determine whether your 

facility would be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in 40 CFR 51.166 

and 52.21. Entities potentially affected 

by this final action also include state, 

local and tribal governments that issue 

PSD permits. 

II. Background and Rationale for This 

Final Action 

The PSD permit program applies to 

any new major stationary source or 

major modification at a stationary 

source located in a designated 

attainment or unclassifiable area for any 

regulated NSR pollutant.1 The PSD 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73699 

2An ‘‘increment’’ is the mechanism used in the 

PSD program to define significant deterioration of 

ambient air quality for a criteria pollutant. An 

increment is the maximum allowable increase in 

ambient concentrations of a pollutant in an area 

relative to a specified baseline concentration. In 

general, a change in ambient pollutant 

concentrations greater than the amount defined by 

an increment is thus considered to significantly 

deteriorate air quality and cannot be allowed. 

regulations require, among other things, 

compliance with emission limitations 

achievable through installation of best 

achievable control technology (BACT); 

an air quality analysis to show that the 

newly constructed source or 

modification will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of any National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

or applicable PSD increment,2 including 

analysis of air quality monitoring data; 

an assessment of impacts on visibility 

and other conditions in national parks 

and similar federal lands in certain 

areas; an additional impacts analysis as 

defined by 40 CFR 51.166(o) and 40 CFR 

52.21(o); and an opportunity for public 

involvement. The EPA regulations for 

the PSD program are contained in 40 

CFR 51.166 (applicable to air agencies 

that issue permits under EPA-approved 

state implementation plans (SIPs)) and 

40 CFR 52.21 (the federal PSD program 

applicable to permits issued by the EPA 

or by delegated air agencies). 

In 1997, the EPA revised its NAAQS 

for particulate matter to include 

standards for a new indicator, PM2.5, 62 

FR 38652 (July 18, 1997). The EPA 

revised the PM2.5 NAAQS in 2006, 71 

FR 61144 (October 17, 2006), and also 

in 2013, 78 FR 103086 (January 15, 

2013). On October 20, 2010, the EPA 

published a final rule establishing PSD 

provisions to implement increments, 

SILs and an SMC for PM2.5. 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), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). The 

SILs are screening tools that have been 

applied in PSD permitting to 

demonstrate that the proposed source’s 

allowable emissions will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS 

or increment (such demonstration is 

required to obtain a permit). The SMC 

has been used to exempt sources from 

a requirement in the CAA to collect 

preconstruction monitoring data for up 

to 1 year before submitting a permit 

application in order to help determine 

existing ambient air quality. 

On December 17, 2010, the Sierra 

Club petitioned the Court to review the 

2010 PM2.5 SILs and SMC final rule. On 

January 22, 2013, the Court granted a 

request from the EPA to vacate and 

remand to the EPA portions of the PSD 

regulations (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 

52.21(k)(2)) establishing the SILs for 

PM2.5 so that the EPA could reconcile 

the inconsistency between the 

regulatory text and certain statements in 

the preamble to the 2010 final rule. 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 463– 

64 (D.C. Cir. 2013). The Court further 

vacated the portions of the PSD 

regulations (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) 

and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.5

SMC, finding that the EPA lacked legal 

authority to adopt and use the PM2.5

SMC to exempt permit applicants from 

the statutory requirement to compile 

and submit ambient monitoring data. Id. 

at 468–69. 

III. Final Action 

This final action removes from the 

CFR the affected PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

provisions vacated by the Court’s 

decision. Because the Court specifically 

vacated and remanded the PM2.5 SILs in 

sections 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2), 

the EPA is removing the text and 

reserving the paragraphs in sections 

51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2). The Court 

explicitly declined to vacate the PM2.5

‘‘significance levels’’ at section 

51.165(b)(2), and accordingly we are not 

taking any final action to make any 

change to that section. The EPA will 

initiate a separate rulemaking in the 

future regarding the PM2.5 SILs that will 

address the remand. 

Moreover, because the Court vacated 

the SMC provisions in 40 CFR 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), the 

EPA is revising the existing 

concentration for the PM2.5 SMC listed 

in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per 

cubic meter (0 mg/m3). The EPA is not 

entirely removing PM2.5 as a listed 

pollutant in the SMC provisions because 

to do so might lead to the issuance of 

permits that contradict the holding of 

the Court as to the statutory monitoring 

requirements. Both sections 

51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 52.21(i)(5)(iii) 

permit the reviewing authority to 

exempt a permit applicant from the 

monitoring requirements if ‘‘[t]he 

pollutant is not listed in paragraph 

(i)(5)(i) of this section.’’ Were EPA to 

completely remove PM2.5 from the list of 

pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) 

and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the PSD 

regulations, PM2.5 would no longer be a 

listed pollutant and the paragraph (iii) 

provision could be interpreted as giving 

reviewing authorities the discretion to 

exempt permit applicants from the 

requirement to conduct monitoring for 

PM2.5, in contravention of the Court’s 

decision and the CAA. Instead, the EPA 

is revising the concentration listed in 

sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to 0 mg/m3. This means 

that there is no air quality impact level 

below which a reviewing authority has 

the discretion to exempt a source from 

the PM2.5 monitoring requirements. By 

continuing to include PM2.5 as a 

pollutant in the list contained in 

sections 51.166(i)(5)(i) and 52.21(i)(5)(i), 

with the numerical value replaced with 

0 mg/m3, we avoid any concern that 

paragraph (iii) of the two affected 

sections could be applied to excuse 

permit applicants from adequately 

addressing the monitoring requirement 

for PM2.5. 

The EPA is taking this action as a 

final rule without providing an 

opportunity for public comment or a 

public hearing because the EPA finds 

that the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) good cause exemption applies 

here. In general, the APA requires that 

general notice of proposed rulemaking 

shall be published in the Federal 

Register. Such notice must provide an 

opportunity for public participation in 

the rulemaking process. However, the 

APA does provide an avenue for an 

agency to directly issue a final 

rulemaking in certain specific instances. 

This may occur, in particular, when an 

agency for good cause finds (and 

incorporates the finding and a brief 

statement of reasons in the rule issued) 

that notice and public procedure 

thereon are impracticable, unnecessary 

or contrary to the public interest. See 5 

USC 553(b)(3)(B). The EPA has 

determined that it is not necessary to 

provide a public hearing or an 

opportunity for public comment on this 

action because the amendment of the 

regulations to remove the affected 

provisions for the PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

is a necessary ministerial act. As the 

Court vacated the PM2.5 SILs and SMC 

provisions, the EPA no longer has the 

authority to allow the use of the affected 

provisions after the Court’s final 

decision. Therefore, in as much as this 

action to remove the affected regulatory 

text simply implements the decision of 

the Court, it would serve no useful 

purpose to provide an opportunity for 

public comment or a public hearing on 

this issue. 

In addition, notice and comment 

would be contrary to the public interest 

because it would unnecessarily delay 

the removal of the unlawful PM2.5 SIL 

and SMC provisions from the CFR, 

which could result in confusion on the 

part of the regulated industry and state, 

local and tribal air agencies about how 

the Court’s decision affects the PSD 

regulations and PSD permitting. 

Promulgation of this rule soon after the 

Court’s decision serves to clarify that 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73700 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

3 Information Collection Required for Changes to 

40 CFR parts 51 and 52: 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) June 2010. 

sources cannot continue to rely on the 

PSD PM2.5 SILs and SMC as was 

previously allowed. Given the 

substantial costs to the owner/operator 

of projects associated with delays and 

uncertainty, it is in the public interest 

for the EPA to amend the CFR without 

delay. 

For these reasons, the EPA finds good 

cause to issue a final rulemaking 

pursuant to section 553 of the APA, 5 

U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Therefore, the 

requirements of CAA section 307(d), 

including the requirement for public 

comment and hearing on proposed 

rulemakings, do not apply to this action. 

IV. Implementation 

The Court’s vacatur of the PM2.5 SILs 

in 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) 

and the SMC provisions in sections 

51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) 

means that these provisions can no 

longer be relied upon by either permit 

applicants or permitting authorities. The 

EPA has already stopped relying on 

sections 52.21(k)(2) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) 

of the federal PSD regulations when we 

issue PSD permits. We have also 

advised state and local air agencies to 

which we have delegated our authority 

to issue permits under the federal PSD 

program (codified at section 52.21) not 

to rely on these provisions. Permitting 

authorities with EPA-approved SIPs 

containing any or all of the affected 

PM2.5 SIL and SMC provisions 

previously allowed by sections 

51.166(k)(2) and 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) should 

remove their corresponding SILs 

provisions and revise the numerical 

value of the PM2.5 SMC to 0 mg/m3 (or 

make equivalent changes) as soon as 

feasible, which may be in conjunction 

with the next otherwise planned SIP 

revision. Furthermore, the EPA advises 

that these provisions as reflected in the 

existing state and local EPA-approved 

SIPs are unlawful and may not be 

applied even prior to their removal from 

the SIPs. 

The Agency has provided a question 

and answer document regarding the 

implications of the Court’s decision in 

various contexts (Guidance on the 

Applicability of the January 22, 2013 

Circuit Court Decision on PM2.5

Significant Impact Levels and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration). 

This document is available on the 

agency’s Web site located at http://

www.epa.gov/nsr/guidance.html. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Executive Order 13563: 

Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements for 

the PSD program, including the 

requirements addressed by this rule, 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 

and has assigned OMB control number 

2060–0003. 

Pursuant to title I, part C, of the Act, 

the PSD program requires the owner or 

operator to obtain a permit prior to 

either constructing a new major 

stationary source or making a major 

modification to an existing major 

stationary source. The information 

collection for sources under PSD results 

from the requirement for owners or 

operators to submit applications for 

NSR permits. For reviewing authorities, 

the information collection results from 

the requirement to process permit 

applications and issue permits, and to 

transmit associated information to the 

EPA. The EPA oversees the PSD 

program, and the information collected 

by sources and reviewing authorities is 

used to ensure that the program is 

properly implemented. 

We anticipate that some sources 

currently in the permitting process will 

no longer be able to apply the PM2.5

SMC to assert an exemption from the 

statutory requirement to submit air 

quality monitoring data as defined by 

CAA section 165(e)(2). The air quality 

monitoring data required to be 

submitted by permit applicants is often 

readily available as part of existing 

representative ambient air quality data 

available for public review. We also 

anticipate that some sources currently 

in the permitting process will no longer 

be able to apply the PM2.5 SIL as an 

automatic ‘‘safe harbor’’ to satisfy the 

statutory requirement to show that the 

proposed source will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS 

or increment under CAA section 

165(a)(3). Some sources may be required 

to conduct a more comprehensive air 

quality analysis in order to make the 

demonstration required by the statute 

where, for example, background air 

quality is close to the level of the 

NAAQS. 

Any burden anticipated as a result of 

this rule has already been addressed in 

the analysis conducted for the final rule 

establishing PSD provisions to 

implement increments, SILs and a SMC 

for PM2.5. 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), 75 FR 64864 (Oct. 

20, 2010). In that rule, over the 3-year 

period covered by the ICR,3 we 

estimated an average annual burden 

totaling about 29,000 hours and $2.8 

million for all industry entities that 

would be affected by the final rule. In 

addition, burden was calculated for 

state and local agencies to revise their 

SIPs to incorporate the changes. Over 

the 3-year period covered by the ICR for 

the 2010 rule, we estimated that the 

average annual burden for all State and 

local reviewing authorities will total 

about 7,500 hours and $581,000. Burden 

is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). The 

burden calculated in the 2010 rule was 

a conservative estimate as the analysis 

assumed that the same number of 

sources would collect and submit air 

quality monitoring data and conduct a 

comprehensive air quality analysis 

despite the promulgation of the PM2.5

SMC and SILs in that rule. Therefore, 

the current rule does not add any 

further burden that was not already 

anticipated and addressed by the 

previous 2010 rule and ICR. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Today’s good cause final rule is not 

subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA), which generally requires an 

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility 

analysis for any rule that will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The RFA applies only to rules subject to 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

requirements under the APA or any 

other statute. This rule is not subject to 

notice-and-comment requirements 

under the APA or any other statute 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 73701 

because although the rule is subject to 

the APA, the agency has invoked the 

‘‘good cause’’ exemption under 5 USC 

553(b), and therefore it is not subject to 

the notice-and-comment requirement. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any state, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of UMRA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

good cause final action addresses the 

Court’s vacatur of certain PSD 

regulations. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This good cause 

final action addresses the Court’s 

vacatur of certain PSD regulations. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This good cause final action addresses 

the Court’s vacatur of certain PSD 

regulations. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This action does not involve technical 

standards. Therefore, the EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

Feb. 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

good cause final rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule 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). This rule 

will be effective on December 9, 2013. 

VI. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 165–169 and 

301 of the Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 

7475–7479 and 7601). 

VII. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

judicial review of this final rule is 

available only by the filing of a petition 

for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia Circuit by 

February 7, 2014. Under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

that are the subject of this final rule may 

not be challenged later in civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by us to 

enforce these requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practices and 

procedures, Air pollution control, 

Environmental protection, Incorporation 

by reference, Intergovernmental 

relations. 

Dated: November 26, 2013. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
73702 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

■ 2. Section 51.166 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the words ‘‘4 mg/m3, 

24-hour average,’’ and adding in their 

place ’’0 mg/m3’’ in paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c). 

■ b. By adding a note to paragraph 

(i)(5)(i)(c). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (k)(2). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 51.166 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(c) Note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c): In 

accordance with Sierra Club v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), no exemption 

is available with regard to PM2.5. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 4. Section 52.21 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. By removing the words ‘‘4 mg/m3, 

24-hour average,’’ and adding in their 

place ’’0 mg/m3’’ in paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c). 

■ b. By adding a note to paragraph 

(i)(5)(i)(c). 

■ c. By removing and reserving 

paragraph (k)(2). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 52.21 Prevention of significant 

deterioration of air quality. 

* * * * * 

(i) * * * 

(5) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(c) Note to paragraph (i)(5)(i)(c): In 

accordance with Sierra Club v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (DC Cir. 2013), no exemption 

is available with regard to PM2.5. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–29196 Filed 12–6–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

41 CFR Part 300–90 

[FTR Amendment 2013–04; FTR Case 2011– 

310; Docket Number 2013–0012, 

Sequence 1] 

RIN 3090–AJ23 

Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); 

Telework Travel Expenses Test 

Programs 

AGENCY: Office of Government-wide 

Policy, U.S. General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: GSA is amending the Federal 

Travel Regulation (FTR) to incorporate 

the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, 

which establishes and authorizes 

telework travel expenses test programs, 

authorizes reimbursement for any 

necessary travel expenses in 

conjunction with such a test program in 

lieu of any payment otherwise 

authorized or required by the FTR, and 

permits waiver of travel expense 

reimbursements by participating 

employees. 

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is 

effective January 8, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Rick 

Miller, Office of Governmentwide 

Policy, at 202–501–3822 or email at 

rodney.miller@gsa.gov. Please cite FTR 

Amendment 2013–04, FTR case 2011– 

310. Contact the U.S. General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., 

2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405–0001, 

202–501–4755, for information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5707, the 

Administrator of General Services is 

authorized to prescribe necessary 

regulations to implement laws regarding 

Federal employees who travel in the 

performance of official business away 

from their official stations. The overall 

implementing authority is the FTR, 

codified in Title 41 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, chapters 300–304 

(41 CFR chapters 300–304). 

This final rule incorporates Section 3 

of Public Law 111–292, the ‘‘Telework 

Enhancement Act of 2010,’’ codified in 

5 U.S.C. 5711, which authorizes the 

creation of agency telework travel 

expenses test programs. Under a 

telework travel expenses test program, if 

a participating employee voluntarily 

relocates from his/her official duty 

station to a new official station, then the 

employing agency can establish a 

reasonable maximum number of 

occasional visits to the pre-existing 

official station (e.g., one visit per 

month/quarter, four times a year) before 

that participating employee is eligible 

for payment of any accrued travel 

expenses by that agency for travel to the 

pre-existing official station. The term 

‘‘voluntarily relocate’’ means that a 

participating employee requests to 

relocate from the pre-existing official 

station to a telework location, and 

therefore, the agency has not made a 

determination that relocation is in the 

best interest of the Government. 

An agency shall include in any 

request to the Administrator for 

approval of such a test program an 

analysis of the expected cost and 

benefits and a set of criteria for 

evaluating the effectiveness of the 

program. As provided in 5 U.S.C. 5711, 

under an approved test program, an 

agency may provide a participating 

employee with the option to waive any 

payment authorized or required under 5 

U.S.C. Chapter 57, Subchapter 1. 

An agency will be required to submit 

an annual report on the results of the 

test program including overall costs and 

benefits. 

Pursuant to this authority, this final 

rule amends 41 CFR chapter 300 by 

adding part 300–90 regarding authority 

and procedures for agencies to conduct 

a telework travel expenses test program. 

B. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 

13563 direct agencies to assess all costs 

and benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and is not economically 

significant, under section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866. Accordingly, the rule has been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. 

because the revisions are not considered 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES