Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 4407 

is received by the DDO unless a longer 

period is necessary based on the 

complexity of the legal, technical and 

factual issues presented. The DDO will 

notify the Affected Entity if the 

expected decision will not be issued 

within the 180 day period and if feasible 

will indicate when the decision is 

expected to be issued. The Appeal 

decision will also identify the Review 

Official. The DDO will issue the Appeal 

decision electronically. The DDO’s 

decision will constitute the final agency 

action unless the Affected Entity files a 

timely request for review in accordance 

with the Request for Review procedures 

in § 31.75. 

§ 31.75 Request for review. 

An Affected Entity may file an 

electronic written request for review of 

the DDO’s Appeal decision to the 

appropriate Review Official within 15 

calendar days from the date the Appeal 

decision is electronically sent to the 

Affected Entity. The request for review 

must comply with the following 

requirements: 

(a) Submission of request for review. 

The request must be submitted to the 

Review Official identified in the Appeal 

decision as follows: 

(1) If a Headquarters DDO issued the 

Appeal decision, the request must be 

electronically submitted to the Director 

of the Office of Grants and Debarment, 

or designee, at the email address 

identified in the Appeal decision, with 

a copy to the DDO. 

(2) If the Appeal decision was issued 

by a DDO located in an agency Regional 

Office, the request for review must be 

electronically submitted to the Regional 

Administrator, or designee, at the email 

address identified in the Appeal 

decision, with a copy to the DDO. 

(b) Contents and grounds of request 

for review. The request for review must 

include a copy of the DDO’s Appeal 

decision and provide a detailed 

statement of the factual and legal 

grounds warranting reversal or 

modification of the Appeal decision. 

The only ground for review of a DDO’s 

Appeal decision is that there was a clear 

and prejudicial error of law, fact or 

application of agency policy in deciding 

the Appeal. 

(c) Conducting the review. In 

reviewing the Appeal decision, the 

Review Official will only consider the 

information that was part of the Appeal 

decision unless: 

(i) The Affected Entity provides new 

information in the request for review 

that was not available to the DDO for the 

Appeal decision; and 

(ii) The Review Official determines 

that the new information is relevant and 

should be considered in the interests of 

fairness and equity. 

§ 31.76 Notice of receipt of request for 

review. 

Timeliness. The Review Official will 

provide the Affected Entity electronic 

written notice acknowledging receipt of 

the review request within 15 calendar 

days of receiving the request. The 

Review Official will further provide a 

copy of the notice to the DDO. 

(a) If the request was submitted in 

accordance with section § 31.75, the 

notice of acknowledgment will also 

advise the Affected Entity that the 

Review Official expects to issue a 

decision within 45 calendar days from 

the date they received the request. 

(b) If the request for review was not 

submitted within the required 15 

calendar day period, or does not allege 

reviewable grounds consistent with 

§ 31.75, the Review Official will notify 

the Affected Entity that the request is 

denied as untimely and/or for failing to 

state a valid basis for review. In limited 

circumstances, the Review Official may, 

as a matter of discretion, consider an 

untimely review if doing so would be in 

the interest of fairness and equity. 

§ 31.77 Determination of request for 

review. 

(a) Within 15 calendar days of 

receiving a copy of the notice 

acknowledging the receipt of a timely 

and reviewable Request for Review, the 

DDO will submit the Appeal record to 

the Review Official. 

(b) The Review Official will issue a 

final written decision within 45 

calendar days of the submission of the 

request for review unless a longer 

period is necessary based on the 

complexity of the legal, technical and 

factual issues presented. 

(1) The Review Official will notify the 

Affected Entity if the expected decision 

will not be issued within the 45-day 

period and if feasible will indicate when 

the decision is expected to be issued. 

(2) The Review Official’s decision 

constitutes the final agency action and 

is not subject to further review within 

the agency. 

[FR Doc. 2014–00963 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0173; FRL–9904–91– 

Region 4] 

Air Quality Implementation Plan; 

Alabama; Attainment Plan for the Troy 

Area 2008 Lead Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve a state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision, submitted by the State of 

Alabama through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), to EPA on 

November 9, 2012, for the purpose of 

providing for attainment of the 2008 

Lead (Pb) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) in the Troy 2008 

Lead nonattainment area (hereafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Troy Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). The Troy Area is comprised of 

a portion of Pike County in Alabama 

surrounding the Sanders Lead Company 

(hereafter referred to as ‘‘Sanders 

Lead’’). EPA is taking final action to 

approve Alabama’s November 9, 2012 

SIP submittal regarding the attainment 

plan based on Alabama’s attainment 

demonstration for the Troy Area. The 

attainment plan includes the base year 

emissions inventory requirements, an 

analysis of the reasonably available 

control technology (RACT) and 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) requirements, reasonable 

further progress (RFP) plan, modeling 

demonstration of lead attainment and 

contingency measures for the Troy Area. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective February 

27, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2013–0173. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
4408 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1See 73 FR 66964. http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/ 

kitrules.html 

2Memorandum titled ‘‘2008 Lead (Pb) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

Implementation Questions and Answers’’ dated July 

8, 2011, from Scott L. Mathias, Interim Director, Air 

Quality Policy Division. 

3http://www.epa.gov/air/lead/kitrules.html. 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Zuri 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152 or via electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What is the action EPA is taking? 

III. Why is EPA taking this action? 

IV. What are EPA’s responses to comments to 

Alabama’s November 9, 2012 SIP 

submission? 

V. Final action 

VI. Statutory and executive order reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), 

EPA revised the Lead NAAQS, lowering 

the level from 1.5 micrograms per cubic 

meter (mg/m3) to 0.15 mg/m3 calculated 

over a 3-month rolling average. EPA 

established the NAAQS based on 

significant evidence and numerous 

health studies demonstrating that 

serious health effects are associated 

with exposures to lead emissions. 

Following promulgation of a new or 

revised NAAQS, EPA is required by the 

CAA to designate areas throughout the 

United States as attaining or not 

attaining the NAAQS; this designation 

process is described in section 107(d)(1) 

of the CAA. On November 22, 2010 (75 

FR 71033), EPA promulgated initial air 

quality designations for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, which became effective on 

December 31, 2010, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2007–2009, where there was sufficient 

data to support a nonattainment 

designation. Designations for all 

remaining areas were completed on 

November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097), 

which became effective on December 

31, 2011, based on air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2008–2010. Effective December 31, 

2010, the Troy Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS. This designation triggered a 

requirement for Alabama to submit a 

SIP revision with a plan for how the 

Area would attain the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS, as expeditiously as practicable 

but no later than December 31, 2015. 

EPA provided some guidance on 

attainment planning requirements for 

the Lead NAAQS in the November 2008 

final rule promulgating the NAAQS.1 In 

addition, in July 2011, EPA provided 

additional guidance and clarification in 

the form of a memorandum with 

questions and answers on Lead NAAQS 

implementation.2 In April 2012, EPA 

also released the ‘‘SIP Toolkit— 

Attainment Demonstrations and Air 

Quality Modeling’’ (located at http://

www.epa.gov/air/lead/kitmodel.html) 3

with further guidance on air quality 

modeling for attainment 

demonstrations. 

ADEM submitted its 2008 Lead 

NAAQS attainment SIP for the Troy 

Area on November 9, 2012, which 

included the base year emissions 

inventory and the attainment 

demonstration. EPA proposed to 

approve the Troy Area attainment SIP 

for the 2008 Lead NAAQS on September 

6, 2013. EPA’s analysis of the submitted 

attainment demonstration included a 

review of the pollutant addressed, 

emissions inventory requirements, 

modeling, RACT and RACM 

requirements, RFP plan, and 

contingency measures for the Troy Area. 

Refer to EPA’s September 6, 2013, 

proposed rulemaking for detailed 

rationale on EPA’s analysis of the Troy 

area attainment demonstration. 

II. What is the action EPA is taking? 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Alabama’s SIP submittal for the Troy 

Area, as submitted through ADEM to 

EPA on November 9, 2012, for the 

purpose of demonstrating attainment of 

the 2008 Lead NAAQS. Alabama’s lead 

attainment plan for the Troy Area 

includes a base year emissions 

inventory, a modeling demonstration of 

lead attainment, an analysis of RACM/ 

RACT, a RFP plan, and contingency 

measures. 

EPA has determined that Alabama’s 

attainment plan for the 2008 Lead 

NAAQS for the Troy Area meets the 

applicable requirements of the CAA. 

Thus, EPA is taking final action to 

approve Alabama’s attainment plan for 

the Troy Area. EPA’s analysis for this 

final action is discussed in Section IV of 

EPA’s September 6, 2013, proposed 

rulemaking. 

III. Why is EPA taking this action? 

EPA has determined that all the 

criteria for Alabama’s lead attainment 

plan for the Troy Area have been met. 

EPA has determined that Alabama’s 

November 9, 2012 SIP submission meets 

the applicable requirements of the CAA. 

Specifically, EPA is taking final action 

to approve Alabama’s November 9, 2012 

SIP submission, which includes the 

attainment demonstration, base year 

emissions inventory, RACM/RACT 

analysis, contingency measures and RFP 

plan. 

IV. What are EPA’s responses to 

comments for Alabama’s November 9, 

2012 SIP submission? 

As mentioned above, the proposed 

rule to approve the attainment 

demonstration for the Troy Area was 

published on September 6, 2013. See 78 

FR 58435. EPA received one comment 

in response to the proposed approval of 

Alabama’s attainment demonstration. 

The Commenter, Sanders Lead, 

generally supported EPA’s action but 

also requested that EPA provide a 

clarification regarding contingency 

measures. 

Comment: The Commenter requests 

that EPA clarify that ‘‘attainment of the 

Pb NAAQS is not required until 

December 31, 2015, and the plan’s 

requirement that Sanders employ 

certain contingency measures if any Pb 

NAAQS exceedance occurs after 2013, 

is not mandated by the Act.’’ The 

Commenter further states that ‘‘while 

Sanders acknowledges the regulatory 

preference to adopt contingency 

measures in the event of an exceedance, 

employment of contingency measures 

may not be legally required by the Clean 

Air Act until December 31, 2015.’’ 

Response: The Commenter is pointing 

to a provision of the SIP submitted by 

Alabama that requires Sanders Lead to 

undertake certain measures in the event 

that an exceedance of the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS occurs after July 2013. In the 

Commenter’s view, since the proposed 

(and final) rule establish that the 

attainment date for the Area is 

December 31, 2015, the SIP cannot 

require Sanders Lead to undertake such 

contingency measures before that date. 

It is true that CAA section 172(c)(9) 

provides that an attainment plan shall 

include contingency measures if the 

area fails to attain the NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date. However, 

section 172(c)(9) also provides that an 

attainment plan shall include 

contingency measures if an area fails to 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 18 / Tuesday, January 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 4409 

make reasonable further progress 

towards attainment by the attainment 

date. Moreover, CAA section 116 

provides that nothing in the Act 

precludes the right of a State to adopt 

or enforce any requirement respecting 

the control or abatement of air pollution 

from stationary sources, provided that 

the requirement is no less stringent than 

required by the Act. Likewise, section 

110(k)(3) provides that EPA shall 

approve a submittal if it meets all of the 

applicable requirements of the Act. 

Finally, CAA section 192(a) of the Act 

provides that the primary Pb NAAQS 

shall be attained as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

The aforementioned multiple CAA 

statutory provisions evidence 

Congressional intent to achieve the 

health benefits of NAAQS attainment as 

expeditiously as practicable, and to 

approve and enforce State strategies that 

will achieve that goal. Therefore, EPA 

believes it is entirely appropriate and 

consistent with the Act to approve the 

portion of Alabama’s SIP submittal 

which requires certain measures to be 

undertaken by Sanders Lead in the 

event an exceedance of the Lead 

NAAQS occurs after July 2013. Even 

assuming it is true that Alabama was not 

required to submit this provision as part 

of its attainment SIP, Alabama certainly 

was authorized to elect to submit the 

requirement, and EPA has no basis 

under the CAA to disapprove it. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

Alabama’s lead attainment plan for the 

Troy Area. EPA has determined that the 

SIP meets the applicable requirements 

of the CAA. Specifically, EPA is taking 

final action to approve Alabama’s 

November 9, 2012, SIP submission, 

which includes the attainment 

demonstration, base year emissions 

inventory, RACM/RACT analysis, 

contingency measures and RFP plan. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal that 

complies with the provisions of the Act 

and applicable Federal regulations. 42 

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

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, October 7, 

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, 

Lead, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: December 18, 2013. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by 

adding a new entry for ‘‘2008 Lead 

Attainment Demonstration for Troy 

Area’’ at the end of the table to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

2008 Lead Attainment Demonstration for Troy Area.Troy Area ............................................. 11/9/12 1/28/14 [Insert citation of publication] ..

[FR Doc. 2014–01500 Filed 1–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES