Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 44881 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 264, 271. 

§ 1240.62 [Amended] 

■ 2. In § 1240.62, remove paragraph (c) 

and redesignate paragraphs (d) and (e) 

as paragraphs (c) and (d), respectively. 

Dated: July 16, 2013. 

Leslie Kux, 

Assistant Commissioner for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17751 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2013–0651] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

York River, Between Yorktown and 

Gloucester Point, VA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulations. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the operation of 

the Coleman Memorial Bridge (US 17/ 

George P. Coleman Memorial Swing 

Bridge) across the York River, mile 7.0, 

between Gloucester Point and 

Yorktown, VA. This deviation is 

necessary to facilitate maintenance work 

on the moveable spans on the Coleman 

Memorial Bridge. This temporary 

deviation allows the drawbridge to 

remain in the closed to navigation 

position. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7 a.m. on August 18, 2013 to 5 p.m. 

August 25, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2013–0651] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH.’’ 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. You may 

also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the Department of 

Transportation West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Mr. Jim 

Rousseau, Bridge Administration 

Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard; 

telephone (757) 398–6557, email 

James.L.Rousseau2@uscg.mil. If you 

have questions on reviewing the docket, 

call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Virginia Department of Transportation, 

who owns and operates this swing 

bridge, has requested a temporary 

deviation from the current operating 

regulation set out in 33 CFR 117.1025, 

to facilitate maintenance of the 

moveable spans on the structure. 

Under the regular operating schedule, 

the Coleman Memorial Bridge, mile 7.0, 

between Gloucester Point and 

Yorktown, VA, opens on signal except 

from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. to 7 

p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays the bridge shall remain 

closed to navigation. The Coleman 

Memorial Bridge has vertical clearances 

in the closed position of 60 feet above 

mean high water. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

drawbridge will be closed to navigation 

from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday August 

18, 2013; with an inclement weather 

date from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday 

August 25, 2013. The bridge will 

operate under normal operating 

schedule at all other times. Emergency 

openings cannot be provided. There are 

no alternate routes for vessels transiting 

this section of the York River. The York 

River is used by a variety of vessels 

including military, tugs, and 

recreational vessels. The Coast Guard 

has carefully coordinated the 

restrictions with these waterway users. 

Vessels able to pass under the bridge 

in the closed position may do so at 

anytime and are advised to proceed 

with caution. The bridge will not be 

able to open for emergencies and there 

is no immediate alternate route for 

vessels to pass transiting this section of 

the York River but vessels may pass 

before 7 a.m. and after 5 p.m. The Coast 

Guard will also inform additional 

waterway users through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

closure periods for the bridge so that 

vessels can arrange their transits to 

minimize any impacts caused by the 

temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: July 12, 2013. 

Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17915 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502; FRL–9838–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Disapproval of PM2.5

Permitting Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove a revision to Wisconsin’s 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources (WDNR) on May 

12, 2011. The revision concerns 

permitting requirements relating to 

particulate matter of less than 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5). EPA is taking final 

action to disapprove the revisions 

because they do not meet the 2008 PM2.5

SIP requirements. The proposed 

rulemaking was published December 18, 

2012. During the comment period which 

ended on January 17, 2013, no 

comments were received. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

August 26, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0502. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

http://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 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. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44882 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision 

III. Revision to the Definition of Regulated 

Pollutant 

IV. What action is EPA taking on this 

submittal? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

This final rulemaking addresses the 

May 12, 2011, WDNR submittal, 

supplemented on March 5, 2012, 

revising the rules in the Wisconsin SIP 

to comply with the 2008 NSR 

Implementation Rule for PM2.5. The 

original submission, and the 

supplement thereto, may be found in 

the docket for this action. 

In May 2008, EPA finalized 

regulations to implement the New 

Source Review (NSR) Implementation 

Rule for PM2.5 to include the major 

source threshold, significant emissions 

rate and offset ratios for PM2.5, 

interpollutant trading for offsets and 

applicability of NSR to PM2.5 precursors. 

On October 20, 2010, EPA amended the 

requirements for PM2.5 under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program by adding maximum 

allowable increase in ambient pollutant 

concentrations and screening tools 

known as the Significant Impact Levels 

(SILs) and the Significant Monitoring 

Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5. 

Wisconsin’s submittals included 

provisions that were designed to match 

the requirements set forth in the May 

2008 and October 2010 rules. Wisconsin 

submitted revisions to its rules NR 400, 

404, 405, 406, 407, 408, and 484 of the 

Wisconsin Administrative Code. The 

submittal included rules to define major 

source thresholds and significant 

emission increase levels; establish the 

SMC for PM2.5; establish interpollutant 

trading ratios for PM2.5, sulfur dioxide 

and nitrogen oxides; and clarify existing 

nonattainment area permitting rules. 

EPA announced through a 

memorandum, on July 21, 2011, a 

change in its policy concerning the 

development and adoption of 

interpollutant trading provisions for 

PM2.5. The new policy requires that any 

ratio involving PM2.5 precursors 

submitted to EPA for approval for use in 

a state’s interpollutant offset program 

for PM2.5 nonattainment areas must be 

accompanied by a technical 

demonstration that shows the net air 

quality benefits of such a ratio for the 

PM2.5 nonattainment area in which it 

will be applied. In a letter dated March 

5, 2012, WDNR requested to withdraw 

its request to have NR 408.06(1)(cm), the 

provision pertaining to interpollutant 

trading ratios, included in its 2011 

submittal. 

EPA published a proposed 

disapproval of Wisconsin’s submittal on 

December 18, 2012, because the 

submittal did not meet the 2008 PM2.5

SIP requirements. Specifically, the 

revisions submitted did not explicitly 

define the precursors of PM2.5, nor did 

they contain the prescribed language to 

ensure that gases that condense to form 

particulate matter (PM), known as 

condensables, are regulated within 

PM2.5 and PM of less than 10 

micrometer (PM10) emission limits. 

During the comment period EPA 

received no comments on the proposed 

action. 

II. Recent D.C. Circuit Decision 

On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

(D.C. Circuit or Court), in Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 706 

F.3d 428 (consolidated with 09–1102, 

11–1430), remanded EPA’s 2007 and 

2008 rules implementing the 1997 PM2.5

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The Court ordered EPA to 

‘‘repromulgate these rules pursuant to 

Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion,’’ 

as opposed to Subpart 1 of Part D, Title 

I, of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Id. at 437. 

Subpart 4 of Part D, Title I, of the CAA 

establishes additional provisions for PM 

nonattainment areas. 

The 2008 implementation rule 

addressed by the Court decision, 

‘‘Implementation of New Source Review 

(NSR) Program for Particulate Matter 

Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),’’ 73 

FR 28321 (May 16, 2008), promulgated 

NSR requirements for implementation 

of PM2.5 in both nonattainment areas 

(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/ 

unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the 

requirements of subpart 4 pertain only 

to nonattainment areas, EPA does not 

consider the portions of the 2008 rule 

that address requirements for PM2.5

attainment and unclassifiable areas to be 

affected by the Court’s opinion. 

Moreover, because EPA does not 

anticipate the need to revise any PSD 

requirements promulgated in the 2008 

rule in order to comply with the Court’s 

decision, EPA’s disapproval of 

Wisconsin’s submittal with respect to 

the PSD requirements promulgated by 

the 2008 implementation rule does not 

conflict with the decision. 

Wisconsin’s submission did include 

several provisions based on the 

nonattainment NSR requirements 

promulgated in the 2008 

implementation rule. Since the 

proposed disapproval of Wisconsin’s 

submittal predated the D.C. Circuit’s 

decision, EPA did not include the 

nonattainment NSR provisions in the 

bases for disapproval. However, for any 

future nonattainment NSR submissions, 

WDNR should follow the Court’s 

direction to implement the PM2.5

NAAQS consistent with subpart 4, 

which includes several provisions that 

affect the nonattainment NSR 

requirements in the 2008 rule. EPA 

expects to provide further guidance on 

this issue to assist the states with future 

submissions. 

On January 22, 2013, the D.C. Circuit, 

in Sierra Club v. EPA, 705 F.3d 458, 

issued an order, inter alia, vacating the 

parts of two PSD regulations 

establishing a PM2.5 SMC (40 CFR 

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

52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)), finding that EPA was 

precluded from using the PM2.5 SMCs to 

exempt permit applicants from the 

statutory requirement to compile 

preconstruction monitoring data. 

Wisconsin included provisions for a 

PM2.5 SMC in its submittal. Because the 

proposed disapproval of December 18, 

2012, predated D.C. Circuit’s January 22, 

2013, remand, EPA did not include the 

PM2.5 SMC as part of the basis for 

disapproval. However, as a result of the 

Court’s decision, it is clear that EPA 

cannot approve any reference to the 

PM2.5 SMC in the State’s PSD SIP. 

III. Revision to the Definition of 

Regulated Pollutant 

In an October 25, 2012, final rule EPA 

revised the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ to correct an inadvertent 

error contained in the regulations for 

PSD at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) and 

52.21 (77 FR 65107). The October 2012 

final action removed an unintended 

new requirement on state and local 

agencies and the regulated community 

that PM emissions must generally 

include the condensable PM fraction. 

PM10 and PM2.5 remain regulated as 

criteria pollutants and emissions of both 

of these PM indicators are still required 

to include the condensable fraction of 

PM emitted by a source in applicability 

determinations and in establishing 

enforceable emissions limitations. The 

October 2012 final rule became effective 

December 24, 2012. 

In the proposed disapproval of 

Wisconsin’s PM2.5 permitting 

requirements, which preceded the 

effective date of the revised 

condensables definition, EPA cited to 

the prior definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant,’’ which included the 

requirement to consider the 

condensable fraction for ‘‘PM 

emissions,’’ as well as the condensable 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 44883 

fraction for PM2.5 and PM10 emissions. 

The revised definition reads, ‘‘PM2.5

emissions and PM10 emissions shall 

include gaseous emissions from a source 

or activity which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures.’’ While this definition is 

less stringent than what was cited in the 

proposed disapproval of Wisconsin’s 

revisions, because it no longer requires 

the inclusion of condensables for PM, it 

does not affect the bases for disapproval 

of the revisions, because the 

requirements to account for the 

condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10

emissions in permitting decisions 

remain. 

The October 2012 final rule also 

reorganized the placement of the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ 

The provision of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule that requires 

condensables be accounted for in PM2.5

and PM10 permitting decisions is now 

codified in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(i)(a) 

and 52.21(b)(50)(i)(a). 

IV. What action Is EPA taking on this 

submittal? 

EPA is taking final action to 

disapprove the revisions to Wisconsin 

rules NR 400, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408 

and 484, submitted by the State on May 

12, 2011, for approval into the SIP. The 

rule revisions submitted are not 

consistent with Federal regulations 

governing state permitting programs. 

See the December 18, 2012, proposed 

rule. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a part D plan 

(section 171—193 of the CAA), or is 

required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

section 110(k)(5), starts a sanction clock. 

The submission that EPA is taking final 

action to disapprove was not submitted 

to meet either of these requirements. 

Therefore, with the final action to 

disapprove these submissions, no 

sanctions under section 179 will be 

triggered. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

section 110(c) of the CAA that EPA 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

state corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. However, since 

elements of this SIP revision were 

narrowly disapproved under the 

Infrastructure SIP, the two year 

timeframe began with the final narrow 

disapproval of Wisconsin’s 

Infrastructure SIP (October 29, 2012; 77 

FR 65478). EPA will actively work with 

Wisconsin to incorporate changes to its 

PSD program that explicitly identify 

PM2.5 precursors and account for the 

condensable fraction of PM2.5 and PM10

emissions in establishing enforceable 

permit emissions limits, consistent with 

the 2008 NSR Rule. In the interim, EPA 

expects WDNR to adhere to the 

associated requirements of the 2008 

NSR Rule in its PSD program, 

specifically with respect to the explicit 

identification of PM2.5 precursors, and 

accounting for the condensable fraction 

of PM2.5 and PM10 emissions in 

applicability determinations and 

enforceable permit emissions limits. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as not meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain an 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy 

action,’’ this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

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 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
44884 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 143 / Thursday, July 25, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

action. In reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve or disapprove 

state choices, based on the criteria of the 

CAA. Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain state requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA 

and will not in-and-of itself create any 

new requirements. Accordingly, it 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. 

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 the 

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). 

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

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 23, 2013. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: July 10, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Section 52.2592 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2592 Review of new sources and 

modifications. 

Disapproval—On May 12, 2011, the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources submitted a proposed 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan to update its rules to match the 

2008 New Source Review 

Implementation Rule for PM2.5. The 

State supplemented the submittal on 

March 5, 2012. EPA determined that 

this submittal was not approvable 

because the revisions did not explicitly 

identify the precursors to PM2.5 and did 

not contain the prescribed language to 

ensure that gases that condense to form 

PM, known as condensables, are 

regulated within PM2.5 and PM10

emission limits. 

[FR Doc. 2013–17837 Filed 7–24–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[WV104–6042; FRL–9828–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Update to Materials 

Incorporated by Reference 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; administrative 

change. 

SUMMARY: EPA is updating the materials 

that are incorporated by reference (IBR) 

into the West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

regulations affected by this update have 

been previously submitted by the West 

Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection (WV DEP) and approved by 

EPA. This update affects the SIP 

materials that are available for public 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA), the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center located at EPA 

Headquarters in Washington, DC, and 

the EPA Regional Office. 

DATES: This action is effective July 25, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: SIP materials which are 

incorporated by reference into 40 CFR 

part 52 are available for inspection at 

the following locations: Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Room Number 3334, EPA 

West Building, Washington, DC 20460; 

or the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to: http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon McCauley, (215) 814–3376 or by 

email at mccauley.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The SIP is a living document which 

a state revises as necessary to address its 

unique air pollution problems. 

Therefore, EPA, from time to time, must 

take action on SIP revisions containing 

new and/or revised regulations as being 

part of the SIP. On May 22, 1997 (62 FR 

27968), EPA revised the procedures for 

incorporating by reference Federallyapproved SIPs, as a result of 

consultations between EPA and the 

Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The 

description of the revised SIP 

document, IBR procedures and 

‘‘Identification of plan’’ format are 

discussed in further detail in the May 

22, 1997 Federal Register document. On 

February 10, 2005 (70 FR 7024), EPA 

published a Federal Register beginning 

the new IBR procedure for West 

Virginia. On February 28, 2007 (72 FR 

8903) February 10, 2009 (74 FR 6542), 

and December 28, 2010 (75 FR 81474), 

EPA published updates to the IBR 

material for West Virginia. 

Since the publication of the last IBR 

update, EPA has approved into the SIP 

the following regulatory changes to the 

following West Virginia regulations: 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES