27168 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ 

from Steven A. Herman, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for 

Air and Radiation (the 1999 

Memorandum). 

As explained in these memoranda, 

because excess emissions might 

aggravate air quality so as to prevent 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS and compliance with other 

CAA requirements, EPA views all 

periods of excess emissions as 

violations of the applicable emission 

limitation. Therefore, EPA will 

disapprove SIP revisions that 

automatically exempt from enforcement 

excess emissions claimed to result from 

an equipment malfunction. In addition, 

as made explicit in the 1999 

Memorandum, EPA will disapprove SIP 

revisions that give discretion to a state 

director to determine whether an 

instance of excess emissions is a 

violation of an emission limitation, 

because such a determination could bar 

EPA and citizens from enforcing 

applicable requirements. 

Under EPA’s interpretations of the 

CAA as set forth in the 1982, 1983, and 

1999 Memoranda, if a state chooses to 

address in its SIP violations that occur 

as a result of claimed malfunctions, the 

state may take two approaches. The 

first, the ‘‘enforcement discretion’’ 

approach, allows a state director to 

refrain from taking an enforcement 

action for a violation if certain criteria 

are met. The second, the ‘‘affirmative 

defense’’ approach, allows a source to 

avoid civil penalties if it can prove that 

certain conditions are met. Utah’s 

revised R307–107 follows the 

enforcement discretion approach. 

We have evaluated Utah’s 

enforcement discretion provisions in 

revised R307–107 and find that they are 

consistent with EPA’s interpretations of 

the CAA as described in the memoranda 

above. In particular, the revised rule 

contains no automatic exemption from 

emission limits, and the criteria 

specified in R307–107–2 that the State 

will consider in deciding whether to 

pursue an enforcement action generally 

parallel the criteria outlined in the 1982 

and 1983 Memoranda. In addition, 

revised R307–107 only addresses the 

State’s exercise of its enforcement 

discretion and contains no language that 

suggests that a State decision not to 

pursue an enforcement action for a 

particular violation bars EPA or citizens 

from taking an enforcement action. 

Therefore, EPA interprets the rule, 

consistent with EPA’s interpretations of 

the CAA, as not barring EPA and citizen 

enforcement of violations of applicable 

requirements when the State declines 

enforcement. 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve the 

revisions to rule R307–107 of the Utah 

SIP that the State submitted to us on 

August 16, 2012. We are proposing that 

these revisions correct the deficiencies 

outlined in our April 18, 2011 SIP call. 

If we finalize this proposed approval, 

the mandatory sanctions clocks 

described in our SIP call and the clock 

for EPA to promulgate a FIP will end. 

V. 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 23, 2013. 

Judith Wong, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10934 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[Docket EPA–R10–OAR–2009–0340; FRL– 

9794–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Alaska: 

Mendenhall Valley PM10 Nonattainment 

Area Limited Maintenance Plan and 

Redesignation Request 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to 

approve the Limited Maintenance Plan 

(LMP) for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) 

submitted by the State of Alaska on May 

8, 2009 for the Mendenhall Valley 

nonattainment area (Mendenhall Valley 

NAA), and the State’s request to 

redesignate the area to attainment for 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27169 

OAR–2009–0340, by any of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10- 

Public_Comments@epa.gov 

• Mail: Mr. Keith Rose, U.S. EPA 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle WA, 98101. Attention: 

Keith Rose, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, AWT–107. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Keith Rose at telephone number: (206) 

553–1949, email address: 

rose.keith@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. The EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revision as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP revision and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If the EPA receives no adverse 

comments, the EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: March 12, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10938 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Chapter I 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2013–0027; Notice No. 

13–5] 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Review 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of regulatory review; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: PHMSA seeks comments on 

the economic impacts of its Hazardous 

Materials Regulations on small entities. 

In accordance with section 610 of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and as 

published in the Unified Agenda and 

Regulatory Plan, PHMSA is reviewing 

and analyzing the regulations applicable 

to the Hazardous Materials Program 

Procedures to identify requirements 

which may have a significant impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

The Unified Agenda and Regulatory 

plan for the Department of 

Transportation can be found at the 

following URL: http://www.gpo.gov/ 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-15/pdf/2013- 

00597.pdf. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 8, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben 

Supko, Office of Hazardous Materials 

Safety, Standards and Rulemaking 

Division (202) 366–8553, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. For more information on the 

Hazardous Materials Regulations 

contact the Hazardous Materials 

Information Center at 1–800–467–4922 

(in Washington, DC call 202–366–4488). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

complete analysis of the rules in the 

2012–2013 Review Year, the Unified 

Agenda and Regulatory Plan, and 

comment submission can be found at: 

http://www.regulations.gov/ (Docket No. 

PHMSA–2013–0027). 

I. Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

A. Background and Purpose 

Section 610 of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act requires periodic reviews 

of existing regulations with significant 

economic impact (5 U.S.C. 610(c)). The 

purpose of the 610 reviews is to assess 

the following: (1) The continued need 

for the rule; (2) the nature of complaints 

or comments received concerning the 

rule from the public; (3) the complexity 

of the rule; (4) the extent to which the 

rule overlaps, duplicates or conflicts 

with other Federal rules, and, to the 

extent feasible, with State and local 

governmental rules; and (5) the length of 

time since the rule has been evaluated 

or the degree to which technology, 

economic conditions, or other factors 

have changed in the area affected by the 

rule. 

B. Review Schedule 

The Department of Transportation 

(DOT) published its Unified Agenda and 

Regulatory Plan on December 21, 2012 

listing in Appendix D—Review Plans 

for Section 610 and Other Requirements 

(78 FR 3299) those regulations that each 

operating administration will review 

under section 610 during the next 12 

months. Appendix D also contains 

DOT’s 10-year review plan for all its 

existing regulations. 

PHMSA has divided its Hazardous 

Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR 

parts 100–185) into 10 groups by subject 

area. Each group will be reviewed once 

every 10 years. Each group of 

regulations is reviewed in a two-stage 

process: (1) Analysis Year; and (2) 

Section 610 Review Year. In the 

Analysis Year, PHMSA conducts a 

review of the group regulations to 

determine whether any rule has a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities; and thus 

requires review in accordance with 

section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act. In each Regulatory Agenda, 

PHMSA publishes the results of the 

analyses completed for the previous 

year. For those rules that may have 

negative findings, a brief rationale is 

provided. For parts, subparts or sections 

of the HMR that do have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities, PHMSA will announce that it 

will be conducting a formal section 610 

review during the following year. For 

the purposes of this review, the 2012– 

2013 610 review year began in the Fall 

of 2012 and PHMSA’s analysis will 

conclude in the Fall of 2013. The 

following table shows the 10-year 

analysis and review schedule: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS