Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25063 

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). 

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 January 

3, 2013 and August 14, 2013 SIP 

revisions: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), 

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

(M). Maryland’s SIP revisions provide 

the basic program elements specified in 

section 110(a)(2) necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

2008 Pb NAAQS. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final rulemaking 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 

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 2008 Pb 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, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: April 16, 2014. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10104 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0242; FRL–9910–25– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Revisions to PSD and 

NNSR Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve a revision to the 

Wisconsin State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(WDNR) to EPA on March 12, 2014, for 

parallel processing. The SIP revision 

modifies the definition of the term 

‘‘major modification’’ in Wisconsin’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25064 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Review (NNSR) programs. The changes 

made to the definition of major 

modification remove an NSR exemption 

for fuel changes as major modifications 

where the source was capable of 

accommodating the change before 

January 6, 1975. Additionally, the 

submittal modifies Wisconsin’s PSD 

program to identify precursors for 

ozone. WDNR requested these revisions 

to match Federal requirements. EPA is 

proposing approval of Wisconsin’s 

March 12, 2014, SIP revision because 

the Agency has made the preliminary 

determination that this SIP revision is in 

accordance with the CAA and 

applicable EPA regulations regarding 

PSD and NNSR. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0242, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 385–5501. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air 

Permits Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2014– 

0242. 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. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: 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., CBI 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 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 Andrea 

Morgan, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–6058 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrea Morgan, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6058, 

Morgan.andrea@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this proposed 

action? 

III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel 

Processing 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Wisconsin’s 

proposed SIP revision? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for this 

proposed action? 

EPA’s ‘‘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’’ (Phase 2 Rule) 

was published on November 8, 2005 

(see 70 FR 71612). Among other 

requirements, the Phase 2 Rule 

obligated states to revise their PSD 

programs to explicitly identify nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) as a precursor to ozone (70 

FR 71612 at 71679, 71699–71700). 

In a June 17, 2009, letter, EPA notified 

WDNR that the definition of the term 

‘‘major modification’’ in NR 405.02 was 

inadequate because it failed to identify 

permits issued under Federal authority. 

Wisconsin’s PSD program was approved 

into its SIP on June 28, 1999. Prior to 

that, PSD construction permits were 

issued under Federal authority. When 

NR 405.02(21)(b)5., was written the 

references to Federal authority were 

inadvertently omitted. Because the 

Federal citations were omitted from the 

rule, EPA identified that in limited 

situations, the state definition could 

allow a source to make a change to use 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 25065 

a different fuel or raw material without 

undergoing major new source permit 

review for the change, even though the 

change could be prohibited under a 

Federal permit. 

III. Wisconsin’s Submittal for Parallel 

Processing 

On March 12, 2014, WDNR submitted 

a draft SIP revision request to EPA to 

revise portions of its PSD and NNSR 

programs. Once finalized, approval of 

this SIP revision request will make the 

Wisconsin SIP consistent with the 

Federal PSD and NNSR rules. 

Wisconsin submitted revisions to its 

rules NR 400, 405, and 408 of the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code. The 

submittal requests that EPA approve the 

following revised rules into Wisconsin’s 

SIP: (1) NR 400.02(123m) and (124); (2) 

NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; (3) 

NR 405.02(25i)(a); (4) NR 405.02(25i)(ag) 

and (ar)1–3; and, (5) NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a 

and b. and 6. At this time EPA is only 

proposing to take action on the portions 

that pertain to the definition of ‘‘major 

modification’’ and explicitly identify 

NOX as a precursor to ozone. 

Specifically, today’s proposed 

rulemaking is limited to the following 

provisions: (1) NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and 

b. and 6; (2) NR 405.02(25i)(a); (3) NR 

405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, (4) NR 

408.02(20)(e) 5.a and b. and 6. The 

remainder of WDNR’s submission as it 

relates to the identification of precursors 

to particulate matter of less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5) and the definition 

of PM2.5 and particulate matter of less 

than 10 micrometers will be addressed 

in a separate rulemaking. 

Because this SIP revision is not yet 

effective at the state level, Wisconsin 

requested that EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ 

the SIP revision. Under this procedure, 

the EPA Regional Office works closely 

with the state while developing new or 

revised regulations. Generally, the state 

submits a copy of the proposed 

regulation or other revisions to EPA 

before concluding its rulemaking 

process. EPA reviews this proposed 

state action and prepares a proposed 

rulemaking action. EPA publishes this 

proposed rulemaking in the Federal 

Register and solicits public comment in 

approximately the same timeframe 

during which the state finalizes its 

rulemaking process. 

After Wisconsin submits the formal 

fully adopted SIP revision request, EPA 

will prepare a final rulemaking action 

for the SIP revision. If changes are made 

to the SIP revision after EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking, such changes must be 

acknowledged in EPA’s final 

rulemaking action. If the changes are 

significant, then EPA will repropose the 

action. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Wisconsin’s proposed SIP revision? 

EPA has evaluated WDNR’s proposed 

revision to the Wisconsin SIP in 

accordance with the Federal 

requirements governing state permitting 

programs. As discussed below, EPA is 

proposing to approve these revisions 

because they meet Federal 

requirements. 

EPA regulations contained at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) and (2) and (f) 

specifically prescribe when use of an 

alternative fuel or change in hours of 

operation is not considered a physical 

change for purposes of defining a 

‘‘major modification’’ under the PSD 

program. WDNR’s revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in its 

PSD program in NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a and 

b. and 6 are consistent with the Federal 

requirements. EPA has similar 

regulations for its NNSR program 

contained at 40 CFR 

51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(5) and (6), and WDNR 

has revised NR 408.02(20)(e)5.a. and b. 

and 6 to be consistent with these 

Federal regulations. Therefore, EPA 

finds Wisconsin’s revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘major modification’’ in its 

PSD and NNSR program to be 

approvable. 

WDNR’s requested revision to the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR air 

contaminant’’ in 405.02(25i)(a) and 

(25i)(ar) and (ar)1 are consistent with 

the explicit identification of the 

precursors to ozone in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR air contaminant’’, 

codified at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(b), 

therefore, we find the revisions to be 

approvable. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve WDNR’s 

March 12, 2014, revisions to: Wisconsin 

rules NR 405.02(21)(b)5.a. and b. and 6; 

NR 405.02(25i)(a); NR 

405.02(25i)(ar)(intro) and 1.; and, NR 

408.02(20)(e)5.a and b. and 6. into the 

SIP. As described above, these revisions 

are consistent with EPA’s own 

regulations with respect to the 

definitions of ‘‘major modification’’ and 

‘‘regulated NSR air contaminant’’. 

VI. 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 (Public Law 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25066 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 85 / Friday, May 2, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1The 2010 NO2 NAAQS is expressed as the three 

year average of the 98th percentile of the annual 

distribution of daily maximum 1-hour average 

concentrations. 

2The official level of the annual NO2 NAAQS is 

0.053 parts per million (ppm), equal to 53 ppb 

which is shown here for the purpose of clearer 

comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

Dated: April 22, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–10115 Filed 5–1–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2013–0527, FRL–9910–16– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York; 

Infrastructure SIP for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide Primary Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

certain elements of New York’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted to demonstrate that the State 

meets the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 2010 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Section 110(a) 

of the CAA requires that each state 

adopt and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by the EPA and is 

commonly referred to as an 

infrastructure SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 2, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2013–0527, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Ruvo.Richard@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 212–637–3901. 

• Mail: Richard Ruvo, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866. 

• Hand Delivery: Richard Ruvo, 

Chief, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 

Floor, New York, New York 10007– 

1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office’s normal 

hours of operation. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 

excluding Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2013– 

0527. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if 

at all possible, that you contact the 

individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view 

the hard copy of the docket. You may 

view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony (Ted) Gardella, Air Programs 

Branch, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New 

York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637– 

4249, or by email at gardella.anthony@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background information? 

III. What elements are required under section 

110(a)(1) and (2)? 

IV. What is EPA’s approach to the review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions? 

V. What did New York submit? 

VI. How has the State addressed the elements 

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

‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions? 

VII. What action is EPA taking? 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve certain 

elements of the State of New York 

Infrastructure SIP as meeting the section 

110(a) infrastructure requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 NO2

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS or standard). As explained 

below, the State has the necessary 

infrastructure, resources, and general 

authority to implement the 2010 NO2

standard. 

II. What is the background 

information? 

On February 9, 2010, EPA 

promulgated a new, 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 (2010 NO2 NAAQS) 

while retaining the annual primary 

NAAQS for NO2 (75 FR 6474). The 2010 

NO2 NAAQS is based on 1-hour three 

year average concentrations.1 The 2010 

NO2 NAAQS is 100 parts per billion 

(ppb) and the new standard 

supplements the existing primary 

annual standard of 53 ppb. The 

secondary NO2 NAAQS remains 

unchanged and is the same as the 

primary annual average NO2 NAAQS, 

i.e., 53 ppb.2

Section 110(a)(1) provides the 

procedural and timing requirements for 

State Implementation Plans (SIPs). 

Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements 

that states must meet for SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. Sections 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA require, in 

part, that states submit to EPA plans to 

implement, maintain and enforce each 

of the NAAQS promulgated by EPA. By 

statute, SIPs meeting the requirements 

of section 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be 

submitted by states within three years 


TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS