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

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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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—ARIZONA REQUIREMENT

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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 17883 

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: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES
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 PM2.5 NAAQS 

through 2025 for the Area. West 

Virginia’s maintenance plans include 

insignificance findings for the mobile 

source contribution of PM2.5 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions to the 

Area for both the 1997 annual and 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5, sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and NOX for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS, which WVDEP 

supplemented on June 24, 2013 to 

include emissions of volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and ammonia (NH3). 

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 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA also 

proposed approval of the associated 

maintenance plans as SIP revisions for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards, which included 

insignificance determinations for PM2.5

and NOX for both standards for 

purposes of transportation conformity. 

Also, EPA proposed approval of the 

2008 comprehensive emissions 

inventory for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

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 decision 

to 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 NAAQS. First, EPA is 

approving West Virginia’s redesignation 

requests for the Charleston Area for the 

1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

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 

PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 PM2.5 and NOX emissions for the 

Area. Finally, EPA is approving the 

2008 comprehensive emissions 

inventory for the Area for the 2006 24- 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES