79654 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

that were promulgated in 2013. 

Washington State also requested EPA 

approval of section 173–476–100 WAC 

Ambient Air Quality Standard for 

Particulate Matter, PM–10 consistent 

with the EPA’s 24-hour course 

particulate matter (PM10) NAAQS 

contained in 40 CFR 50.6. The EPA has 

reviewed this revision to the WAC for 

PM2.5 and PM10 and has made the 

determination that these changes are 

consistent with federal regulations; 

thus, the EPA is proposing to approve 

these changes to Washington’s SIP. 

f. Sulfur Dioxide 

In the November 20, 2013 SIP 

submission, Washington requested EPA 

approval of section 173–476–130 WAC 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 

Sulfur Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide) 

consistent with the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS promulgated by the 

EPA on June 22, 2010, the 3-hour sulfur 

dioxide NAAQS promulgated by the 

EPA on May 22, 1996, and the 24-hour 

sulfur dioxide NAAQS also 

promulgated by the EPA on May 22, 

1996. See 75 FR 35520 and 61 FR 25580. 

Lastly, Ecology requested EPA approval 

of the state annual sulfur dioxide air 

quality standard that is more stringent 

than the corresponding federal NAAQS. 

Under the provisions of 40 CFR 50.2(d) 

states are permitted to establish more 

stringent standards than the national 

standards. The EPA has reviewed this 

revision to the WAC and has made the 

determination that this change is 

consistent with federal regulations; 

thus, the EPA is proposing approval of 

this change to Washington’s SIP. 

III. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing approval of 

Chapter 173–476 WAC Ambient Air 

Quality Standards into the State of 

Washington’s SIP. These changes are 

consistent with, or more stringent than, 

the EPA’s standards for carbon 

monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, 

ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur 

dioxide. Secondly, Ecology repealed 

Chapter 173–470 WAC that contained 

outdated standards for particulate 

matter, previously approved into the SIP 

on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4578). 

Ecology asked the EPA to remove 

Chapter 173–470 from the SIP because 

all current particulate matter standards 

are now consolidated in the newly 

created Chapter 173–476 WAC. The 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

request. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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 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, 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, 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 it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the state, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. Consistent with 

EPA policy, the EPA nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

the Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

September 3, 2013. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 19, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31262 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R01–RCRA–2013–0554; FRL–9904– 

46–Region 1] 

Vermont: Proposed Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to grant final 

authorization to the State of Vermont for 

changes to its hazardous waste program. 

In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section 

of this Federal Register we are 

authorizing the changes to the Vermont 

hazardous waste program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) as a direct final rule without 

prior proposed rule. EPA has 

determined that these changes satisfy all 

requirements needed to qualify for final 

authorization. If we receive no adverse 

comment, we will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by January 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R01– 

RCRA–2013–0554, by mail to Sharon 

Leitch, RCRA Waste Management and 

UST Section, Office of Site Remediation 

and Restoration (OSRR07–1), US EPA 

Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Boston, MA 02109–3912. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 251 / Tuesday, December 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 79655 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or thorough hand 

delivery/courier by following the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Leitch, RCRA Waste 

Management and UST Section, Office of 

Site Remediation and Restoration 

(OSRR07–1), US EPA Region 1, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912; telephone number: (617) 

918–1647; fax number: (617) 918–0647; 

email address: leitch.sharon@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is authorizing 

these changes by a direct final rule. EPA 

did not make a proposal prior to the 

direct final rule because we believe this 

action is not controversial and do not 

expect adverse comments that oppose it. 

We have explained the reasons for this 

authorization in the preamble to the 

direct final rule. Unless we receive 

written adverse comments which 

oppose this authorization during the 

comment period, the direct final rule 

will become effective on the date it 

establishes, and we will not take further 

action on this proposal. If we get 

comments that oppose this action, we 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take immediate effect. We 

will then respond to public comments 

in a later final rule based on this 

proposal. You may not have another 

opportunity for comment. If you want to 

comment on this action, you should do 

so at this time. 

Dated: November 5, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–31125 Filed 12–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS