### 17881 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted statute because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted statute. If we receive adverse comments by April 30, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on May 30, 2014. This will incorporate this statute into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission 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 Clean Air Act. 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, 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 Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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.

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 action 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 30, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 16, 2013. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 D—Arizona**

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(157)(i)(A)( 10) to read as follows:

**§ 52.120 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (157) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * ( 10) Arizona Revised Statutes (West, 2012 Cumulative Pocket Part): Title 49 (the environment), chapter 3 (air quality), article 2 (state air pollution control), section 49–457.05 (‘‘Dust action general permit; best management practices; applicability; definitions’’), excluding paragraph C and paragraphs E, F, G, and H.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 2014–07115 Filed 3–28–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0171; FRL–9908–25– Region 9]** 

**Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).


### 17882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

**ACTION :**  Direct final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the Arizona Statutes portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM) emissions from dust generating operations that do not already have a permit. We are approving a state requirement, in accordance with Arizona Revised Statute section 49– 457.05, that identifies a series of Best Management Practices (BMP) for these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

**DATES :**  This rule is effective on May 30, 2014 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 30, 2014. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take effect.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2014–0171, by one of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions.

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105–3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4125, vineyard.christine@
epa.gov

.
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What requirement did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this

requirement? C. What is the purpose of the submitted

requirement? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the requirement? B. Does the requirement meet the

evaluation criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal A. What requirement did the State submit?

Table 1 lists the Arizona requirement we are approving with the date that it was issued by the State of Arizona and submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).



### TABLE 

### 1—A RIZONA 

### R EQUIREMENT

Agency Requirement Issued Submitted

ADEQ ............................................................................ Dust Action General Permit (DAGP) .............. .............. 12/30/11 05/25/12

ADEQ included the requirement addressed in this document in the submittal of Maricopa Association of Government’s (MAG’s) MAG 2012 Five Percent Plan for PM–10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May 2012) (‘‘MAG Five Percent Plan’’). On July 20, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal of MAG Five Percent Plan incorporating the DAGP met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of this requirement?

There is no previous version of the Dust Action General Permit in the SIP. C. What is the purpose of the submitted requirement?

PM contributes to effects that are harmful to human health and the environment, including premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control PM emissions. D. What is the submitted requirement?

The Dust Action General Permit (DAGP), at Attachment C, ‘‘Best Management Practice Examples,’’ identifies several Best Management Practices (BMPs) for different types of dust generating operations. When ADEQ’s Maricopa County Dust Control Forecast predicts that a day is at high risk for dust generation, operations that generate dust, and which are not already required to control dust pursuant to a permit issued by ADEQ or the Maricopa County Air Quality Department, are expected to choose and implement at least one BMP to reduce or prevent PM– 10 emissions.

Attachment A, Section V of the DAGP provides that the Director of ADEQ may require the owner or operator to obtain a Requirement to Operate (RTO) under the DAGP if the Director finds that the owner or operator of a dust-generating operation has not implemented an applicable BMP as soon as is practicable before and during a day that is forecast to be at high risk of dust generation. Attachment A, Section IV of the DAGP requires compliance with all conditions of the DAGP.

EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this requirement.


### 17883 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the requirement?

Generally, SIP requirements must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not modify the SIP inconsistent with sections 110(l) and
193.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability requirements consistently include the following:

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,
1987 Federal Register Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register

.

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10 Nonattainment Areas Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 452/R–93–008, April 1993.

6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures,’’

EPA 450/2–92–004, September 1992. 7. ‘‘Incorporating Emerging and Voluntary Measures in a State Implementation Plan (SIP),’’Office of Air and Radiation, September
2004. B. Does the requirement meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe this requirement is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted statute because we believe it fulfills all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted statute. If we receive adverse comments by April 30, 2014, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on May 30, 2014. This will incorporate this statute into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission 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 Clean Air Act. 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. Law.fied 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 Clean Air Act; and

• does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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.

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 action 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 30, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules section of today’s Federal Register , rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: March 7, 2014. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:


### 17884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations

**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 D—Arizona**

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(157)(i)(A)( 11 ) to read as follows:

**§ 52.120 Identification of plan.**
* * * * *

(c) * * * (157) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * ( 11 ) Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, Dust Action General Permit, including attachments A, B, and C, issued December 30, 2011.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2014–07118 Filed 3–28–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Parts 52 and 81**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0090; FRL–9908–88– Region–3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West**  **Virginia; Approval of the Redesignation Requests and the**  **Associated Maintenance Plans of the Charleston Nonattainment Area for the**  **1997 Annual and the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particulate Matter Standards** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Final rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the State of West Virginia’s requests to redesignate to attainment the Charleston nonattainment area (hereafter ‘‘the Charleston Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) for both the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards). EPA is also approving as a revision to the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), the associated maintenance plans to show maintenance of the 1997 annual and the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS through 2025 for the Area. West Virginia’s maintenance plans include insignificance findings for the mobile source contribution of PM 2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NO X) emissions to the Area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards, which EPA agrees with and is approving for transportation conformity purposes. In addition, EPA is approving the 2008 emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. These actions are being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

**DATES :**  This final rule is effective on April 30, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0090. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic docket, 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Rose Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by email at quinto.rose@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

On December 6, 2012, the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) formally submitted a request to redesignate the Charleston Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and the 2006 24- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Concurrently, WVDEP submitted maintenance plans as SIP revisions to ensure continued attainment of the standards throughout the Area over the next 10 years. The December 6, 2012 submittal also includes a 2008 comprehensive emissions inventory for PM 2.5 , sulfur dioxide (SO 2) and NO X for the 2006 24- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, which WVDEP supplemented on June 24, 2013 to include emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH 3 ). The Charleston Area is comprised of Kanawha and Putnam Counties. On January 24, 2014 (79 FR 4121), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of West Virginia’s redesignation requests for the Charleston Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. EPA also proposed approval of the associated maintenance plans as SIP revisions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standards, which included insignificance determinations for PM 2.5 and NO X for both standards for purposes of transportation conformity. Also, EPA proposed approval of the 2008 comprehensive emissions inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 standard to meet the requirement of section 172(c)(3) of the CAA. EPA proposed to find that the Area continues to attain both standards.

In the NPR, EPA addressed the effects of two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit Court): The D.C. Circuit Court’s August 21, 2012 decisionto vacate and remand to EPA the CrossState Air Pollution Control Rule (CSAPR); and the D.C. Circuit Court’s January 4, 2013 decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual PM 2.5 standard. Specific details of West Virginia’s submittals and the rationale for EPA’s proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

EPA is taking final actions on the redesignation requests and SIP revisions for the Charleston Area submitted by the State of West Virginia on December 6, 2012 for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA is approving West Virginia’s redesignation requests for the Charleston Area for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, because EPA has determined that the requests meet the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA for these NAAQS. Second, EPA is finding that the Charleston Area is attaining and will continue to attain both the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS. Third, EPA is approving the associated maintenance plans for the Area as revisions to the West Virginia SIP for the 1997 annual and 2006 24- hour PM 2.5 NAAQS because they meet the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. EPA is also approving for both standards West Virginia’s transportation conformity insignificant determinations for PM 2.5 and NO X emissions for the Area. Finally, EPA is approving the 2008 comprehensive emissions inventory for the Area for the 2006 24-