Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29683 

into the zone, give legally enforceable 

orders to persons or vessels within the 

zone, and take other actions authorized 

by the Captain of the Port. 

(2) ‘‘Public vessel’’ means vessels 

owned, chartered, or operated by the 

United States, or by a State or political 

subdivision thereof. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or 

his designated representative. 

(2) This safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, excepted as may be 

permitted by the Captain of the Port, 

Lake Michigan or his designated 

representative. All persons and vessels 

must comply with the instructions of 

the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or 

his designated representative. Upon 

being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by 

siren, radio, flashing light or other 

means, the operator of a vessel shall 

proceed as directed. 

(3) All vessels must obtain permission 

from the Captain of the Port or his 

designated representative to enter, move 

within, or exit the safety zone 

established in this section when this 

safety zone is enforced. Vessels and 

persons granted permission to enter the 

safety zone must obey all lawful orders 

or directions of the Captain of the Port 

or a designated representative. While 

within a safety zone, all vessels must 

operate at the minimum speed 

necessary to maintain a safe course. 

(d) Notice of enforcement or 

suspension of enforcement. The safety 

zone established by this section will be 

enforced only upon notice of the 

Captain of the Port. The Captain of the 

Port will cause notice of enforcement of 

the safety zone established by this 

section to be made by all appropriate 

means to the affected segments of the 

public including publication in the 

Federal Register as practicable, in 

accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such 

means of notification may also include, 

but are not limited to Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. 

(e) Exemption. Public vessels, as 

defined in paragraph (b) of this section, 

are exempt from the requirements in 

this section. 

(f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain 

of the Port Lake Michigan or his 

designated representative may waive 

any of the requirements of this section, 

upon finding that operational 

conditions or other circumstances are 

such that application of this section is 

unnecessary or impractical for the 

purposes of public or environmental 

safety. 

Dated: May 3, 2013. 

M.W. Sibley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Lake Michigan. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12030 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0272; FRL–9816–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson 

County Portion of the Kentucky SIP; 

Emissions During Startups, 

Shutdowns, and Malfunctions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

part of a revision to the Kentucky State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

through the Kentucky Division for Air 

Quality (KDAQ), on March 22, 2011. 

The proposed revision was submitted by 

KDAQ on behalf of the Louisville Metro 

Air Pollution Control District (District), 

which has jurisdiction over Jefferson 

County, Kentucky. The portion of the 

revision that EPA is proposing for 

approval modifies the Regulation 

entitled, ‘‘Emissions During Startups, 

Shutdowns, Malfunctions and 

Emergencies’’ in the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA is 

proposing approval of this portion of the 

March 22, 2011, SIP revision because 

the Agency has determined that it is in 

accordance with the requirements for 

SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). EPA will act on the other 

portions of KDAQ’s March 22, 2011, 

submittal, which are severable and 

unrelated, in a separate action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 20, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0272, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0272, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0272.’’ EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29684 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson 

County governments merged and the ‘‘Jefferson 

County Air Pollution Control District’’ was renamed 

the ‘‘Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District.’’ However, each of the regulations in the 

Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP still 

has the subheading ‘‘Air Pollution Control District 

of Jefferson County.’’ Thus, to be consistent with 

the terminology used in the SIP, we refer 

throughout this notice to regulations contained in 

Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP as the 

‘‘Jefferson County’’ regulations. 

2The District’s Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 

June 21, 2005, changes to the SSM rule references 

the following memoranda as part of the basis for the 

revisions to its SSM rule: ‘‘Policy on Excess 

Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, 

and Malfunctions,’’ Kathleen M. Bennett, 

September 28, 1982; ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions 

During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions,’’ Kathleen M. Bennett, February 15, 

1983; and ‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ Steven A. Herman, 

September 20, 1999. 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that, if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey, Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104 or via electronic mail at 

huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

II. What is the background of the Jefferson 

County rule on startups, shutdowns, 

malfunctions (SSM) and emergencies? 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the revisions 

to the Jefferson County SSM Rule? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing this action and 

what is the effect of this proposed 

action? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Jefferson County portion 

of the Kentucky SIP to incorporate 

revisions to Jefferson County Regulation 

1.07, ‘‘Emissions During Startups, 

Shutdowns, Malfunctions and 

Emergencies’’ (referred to hereafter as 

the ‘‘Jefferson County SSM rule’’).1 The 

revision modifies all seven sections of 

the existing version of Regulation 1.07 

currently in the EPA-approved SIP for 

Jefferson County. EPA believes that the 

changes to the Jefferson County SSM 

rule are consistent with CAA 

requirements that apply to excess 

emissions during startup, shutdown and 

malfunction (SSM) events. In addition, 

EPA believes that these changes will 

correct existing concerns about the prior 

version of the Jefferson County SSM 

rule in the SIP for this Area, as 

explained below. Please refer to the 

docket for this rulemaking for the 

complete text of the adopted provisions. 

II. What is the background of the 

Jefferson County Rule on startups, 

shutdowns, malfunctions (SSM) and 

emergencies? 

The regulation of emissions from 

stationary sources is a part of the 

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control 

District’s program for attaining and 

maintaining compliance with the 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS) and for meeting other CAA 

requirements. The current EPAapproved SIP for the Jefferson County 

area incorporates a prior version of the 

Jefferson County SSM rule that includes 

certain provisions applicable to excess 

emissions from such sources during 

startup, shutdown, malfunction, and 

emergency events. EPA published 

approval of the original version of this 

rule on January 25, 1980. See 45 FR 

6092. On February 11, 1999, Kentucky 

submitted multiple changes to the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP, which EPA approved on 

October 23, 2001. See 66 FR 53658. 

Among other elements, Kentucky’s 

February 11, 1999, submittal included 

several changes to the Jefferson County 

SSM rule. The submittal added to this 

rule a definition of ‘‘Emergency’’ in 

Section 1, Definitions, and a new 

Section 5, Emergencies, which contains 

an affirmative defense provision for 

emergencies that is very similar to the 

affirmative defense provision of the title 

V operating permit regulations. See 40 

CFR 70.7(g). Additionally, the February 

11, 1999, submittal modified Section 2, 

Excess Emissions, of the rule such that 

excess emissions would not be deemed 

in violation of otherwise applicable 

emission limits in the SIP if, based upon 

a showing by the owner or operator of 

the source and an affirmative 

determination by the District, certain 

requirements regarding startups and 

shutdowns, malfunctions, and 

emergencies are satisfied. Those 

requirements, as revised by the February 

11, 1999, submittal, are specified in the 

following sections of the Jefferson 

County SSM rule: Section 3, Startup or 

Shutdown; Section 4, Malfunctions; 

Section 5, Emergencies; Section 6, 

Initial Notification and Reporting 

Requirements for Malfunctions and 

Emergencies; and Section 7, Extended 

Malfunctions and Emergencies. 

Acknowledging deficiencies in the 

Jefferson County SSM rule, the District 

proactively adopted changes on June 21, 

2005. The District adopted these 

changes with the intent of correcting 

inconsistencies between its rule and the 

CAA and EPA guidance,2 regarding SIP 

provisions that apply to the treatment of 

excess emissions that may occur during 

source startup, shutdown, maintenance, 

and malfunction events. These changes 

were included in the March 22, 2011, 

SIP revision provided to EPA by KDAQ. 

The most salient features of these latest 

changes to Jefferson County Regulation 

1.07 include: (1) Changing the name of 

the regulation from ‘‘Emissions During 

Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and 

Emergencies’’ to ‘‘Excess Emissions 

During Startups, Shutdowns, and Upset 

Conditions;’’ (2) clarifying that excess 

emissions from a process or process 

equipment due to startup, shutdown or 

upset condition shall be deemed in 

violation of the applicable emission 

standards; (3) removing the authority of 

the District to grant discretionary 

exemptions from compliance with SIP 

emission standards during SSM events; 

(4) augmenting the source excess 

emission reporting requirements to 

assist the District in evaluating whether 

ambient standards and goals have been 

exceeded and whether enforcement 

actions are needed to protect public 

health and welfare; and (5) removing the 

provisions that created exemptions for 

excess emissions during emergencies 

based upon factors comparable to an 

affirmative defense. 

III. What is EPA’s evaluation of the 

revisions to the Jefferson County SSM 

Rule? 

EPA has evaluated the revised version 

of the Jefferson County SSM rule 

submitted as part of the March 22, 2011, 

SIP submission from KDAQ on behalf of 

the District. Based upon this evaluation, 

EPA believes that the District has made 

several significant changes that make 

the Jefferson County SSM rule 

consistent with CAA requirements and 

with EPA guidance on SIP provisions 

relevant to the treatment of excess 

emissions during SSM events. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29685 

3See, e.g., ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ sent by 

Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and 

Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, 

Regions I–X, on Sept. 20, 1999. 

4On May 9, 2013, Jefferson County provided EPA 

with a letter clarifying and confirming that the 

factors included in Regulation 1.07, Section 2.3, are 

intended to be discretionary factors that Jefferson 

County may consider as part of its own enforcement 

discretion and that the rule does not intend to or 

purport to apply to any other agency or the public. 

This letter is a part of the basis for EPA’s action 

upon the SIP submission and part of the record for 

the action to be appropriately reflected in the CFR. 

5EPA notes that revised Section 3.4 of the 

Jefferson County SSM rule provides that either 

startup or shutdown that is necessitated by an upset 

shall be considered part of the upset. Provision 2.3, 

which sets forth enforcement discretion factors, 

refers to Section 3.6 and 4.4 and thus the Jefferson 

County SSM rule treats startups following a 

malfunction event in the same manner as it treats 

all excess emissions for purposes of enforcement 

discretion. In the context of an enforcement 

discretion provision, as opposed to an affirmative 

defense provision for malfunctions, the Jefferson 

County SSM rule is consistent with the CAA and 

EPA’s policy and guidance. 

6See ‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions During 

Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions,’’ sent by Kathleen M. Bennett, 

Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and 

Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, Regions 

I–X on Feb. 15, 1983 (indicating the CAA would 

allow appropriately drawn enforcement discretion 

provisions in SIPs). 

7See ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ sent by Steven A. 

Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement 

and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to 

the Regional Administrators, Regions I–X, on Sept. 

20, 1999 (indicating that the CAA would allow 

appropriately drawn affirmative defense provisions 

in SIPs). 

First, the District has explicitly 

provided that excess emissions from 

sources due to startup, shutdown, or 

upset (i.e., malfunction) events are not 

exempt from compliance with 

applicable emission limits. Revised 

Section 2.2 of the Jefferson County SSM 

rule clearly provides that excess 

emissions during such events ‘‘shall be 

deemed in violation of the applicable 

emission standard.’’ This provision is 

consistent with EPA’s longstanding 

interpretation of the CAA to prohibit 

SIP provisions that include any 

exemptions for excess emissions during 

SSM events and requiring that such 

emissions be treated as violations.3

Second, the District has substantially 

revised the Jefferson County SSM rule 

in order to alter provisions that 

previously had the effect of providing 

an exemption for emissions during SSM 

events through the exercise of director’s 

discretion by the District. The prior 

version of the rule contained factors that 

the District could consider in the 

decision whether or not to grant such a 

discretionary exemption. Revised 

Section 2.3 removes the authority of the 

District to grant discretionary 

exemptions from compliance with SIP 

emission standards and in its place 

provides an ‘‘enforcement discretion’’ 

provision that provides specific factors 

for state personnel in their own exercise 

of enforcement discretion for violations 

related to startup, shutdown, and upset 

events. These factors are intended to 

apply only to the District and do not 

affect EPA enforcement or citizen 

enforcement—both of which are 

separately authorized by the CAA.4

These factors include consideration of 

the duration and frequency of the 

emissions; operation/maintenance 

practices; whether there is a recurring 

pattern; certain public health impacts 

associated with the excess emissions, 

among other factors. Notably, these 

factors are also not intended to, and do 

not, operate as an affirmative defense.5

This revised provision is consistent 

with EPA’s longstanding interpretation 

of the CAA to permit SIP provisions that 

address the exercise of enforcement 

discretion by state personnel, so long as 

they do not impinge upon the 

enforcement discretion of EPA or 

citizens.6

Third, the District has also 

substantially revised the Jefferson 

County SSM rule to remove provisions 

that previously included specific 

treatment for excess emissions during 

emergencies. The prior version of the 

rule included provisions that together 

appeared to provide an exemption for 

excess emissions that occurred during 

emergencies, if the source could meet 

certain factors that were structured as an 

affirmative defense. The District has 

removed the definition of ‘‘emergency’’ 

that previously appeared in Section 1.1 

and removed the provisions applicable 

to emergencies in Section 5. The prior 

version of the Jefferson County SSM 

rule could have operated to exempt 

excess emissions during such events, 

and to provide a bar not just to 

monetary penalties, but also a bar to 

injunctive relief for the resulting 

violations of SIP emission standards. 

Moreover, the factors for the affirmative 

defense were not consistent with EPA’s 

guidance for affirmative defense 

provisions for malfunctions.7 Removal 

of these provisions from the Jefferson 

County SSM rule is thus consistent with 

EPA’s longstanding guidance 

concerning SIP provisions, both with 

respect to exemptions for excess 

emissions and with respect to 

affirmative defense provisions that 

would be consistent with CAA 

requirements. 

Fourth, the District has revised the 

provisions of the Jefferson County SSM 

rule to update and expand the 

notification requirements for sources in 

the event of excess emissions related to 

startup, shutdown, and upset 

conditions. These provisions relate to 

the timing and nature of notification 

that the source is required to make to 

the District and may be germane to the 

District’s exercise of enforcement 

discretion under revised Section 2.3. 

EPA believes that these updated 

notification provisions will likely 

enhance compliance and enforcement 

efforts within the Jefferson County area 

and that they otherwise are consistent 

with CAA requirements because they do 

not purport to affect the exercise of 

enforcement discretion by EPA or other 

parties. 

Finally, the District substantially 

revised the Jefferson County SSM rule 

with respect to ‘‘extended’’ 

malfunctions and emergencies. Section 

9 of the prior version of the rule 

appeared to allow sources to continue to 

operate for extended periods of time in 

the event of a malfunction or 

emergency, without legal consequence, 

so long as the source obtained prior 

authorization from the District. Revised 

Section 5 of the rule now makes 

unequivocally clear that, even if the 

District authorizes continued operation 

during such an event following a 

specified process, the excess emissions 

that occur during that extended period 

of time remain violations of the 

applicable SIP emission standards. The 

revised provision states that the 

authorization by the District ‘‘shall 

neither constitute an affirmative defense 

for violations caused by excess 

emissions nor preempt the rights of the 

EPA or any person to take action under 

federal, state, or local law.’’ EPA 

believes Revised Section 5 in 

conjunction with revised Section 2.2 

thus makes clear that any excess 

emissions during such periods 

constitute violations of the applicable 

SIP emission standards and that the 

District, EPA, or others using the citizen 

suit provision of the CAA may still 

pursue appropriate enforcement action 

against the source. The revised 

provision is thus consistent with EPA’s 

longstanding interpretation of the CAA 

to prohibit SIP provisions that include 

exemptions for excess emissions during 

SSM events and requiring that such 

emissions be treated as violations. 

EPA believes that the revisions to the 

Jefferson County SSM rule are 

consistent with the requirements of both 

section 110(l) and section 193. Under 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
29686 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

section 110(l), EPA is prohibited from 

approving any SIP revision that would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirements of the CAA. In 

this action, EPA believes that the 

revisions do not interfere with such 

requirements and in fact strengthen the 

existing SIP by removing or revising 

various provisions related to excess 

emissions during SSM events that 

included automatic exemptions, 

director discretion exemptions, 

affirmative defense provisions, and 

other provisions that were inconsistent 

with CAA requirements and would have 

interfered with effective enforcement of 

the SIP. Because all of these changes are 

improvements to the prior version of the 

Jefferson County SSM rule, and because 

they are themselves consistent with the 

requirements of the CAA as interpreted 

in EPA guidance for SIP provisions, 

EPA is proposing to find that the 

revision is consistent with the 

requirements of section 110(l). 

Similarly, CAA section 193 prohibits 

EPA from approving SIP revisions to 

certain SIP control requirements in 

effect prior to November 15, 1990, 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions. The revision at issue in this 

action does pertain to control 

requirements that, at least in part, 

predate November 15, 1990, and thus 

compliance with section 193 is 

required. Because all of the revisions are 

improvements to the prior version of the 

Jefferson County SSM rule, and because 

the revised provisions are themselves 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA as interpreted in EPA guidance for 

SIP provisions, EPA is proposing that 

the revision is also consistent with the 

requirements of section 193. As a result 

of the improved effectiveness of the 

enforcement program associated with 

emissions during SSM, and the explicit 

determination that such emissions are 

violations of applicable emission limits, 

the revision is expected to produce 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions and is thus consistent with 

CAA section 193. 

Based upon the foregoing analysis, 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

changes to the Jefferson County SSM 

rule contained in the March 22, 2011, 

SIP submission from KDAQ on behalf of 

the District. EPA has determined that 

the specific changes to the rule are 

consistent with CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions that address excess 

emissions during SSM events, and with 

EPA guidance concerning such 

provisions. EPA requests comment on 

this proposal, and in particular requests 

comments on its view that the revisions 

to the Jefferson County SSM rule are 

consistent with CAA requirements for 

SIP provisions. 

EPA notes that in a separate 

rulemaking action, published on 

February 22, 2013, EPA identified 

several deficiencies associated with the 

Jefferson County SSM rule including: (1) 

the rule did not consider all excess 

emissions above SIP emission limits to 

be ‘‘violations;’’ (2) the rule included 

insufficiently bounded director’s 

discretion provisions regarding whether 

an excess emissions event constituted a 

violation and thus creating 

impermissible discretionary exemptions 

from SIP emission limits; (3) the rule 

provided an impermissible exemption 

for excess emissions that occur during 

‘‘emergencies;’’ and (4) the rule 

contained affirmative defense 

provisions that are not consistent with 

CAA requirements. See 78 FR 12460, 

12507–12508. Today’s action proposing 

approval of Jefferson County’s revised 

SSM rule is separate from the February 

22, 2013, action. EPA’s action in this 

proposal does not reopen the public 

comment period associated with the 

separate February 22, 2013, action; nor 

does today’s action purport to revise or 

amend that separate proposed action. 

EPA will be taking a separate final 

action on the February 22, 2013, 

proposed rulemaking. Today’s action 

only proposes to approve the revised 

Jefferson County SSM Rule into the SIP 

as consistent with the CAA and CAA 

policy and guidance, for the reasons 

explained above. 

IV. Why is EPA proposing this action 

and what is the effect of this proposed 

action? 

The purpose of today’s action is to 

propose approval of changes to 

Regulation 1.07 in the Jefferson County 

portion of the Kentucky SIP. The 

District determined that the current SIPapproved rule required changes in light 

of EPA policy memoranda regarding 

excess emissions from stationary 

sources, and voluntarily provided a 

revision to KDAQ who submitted the 

revised rule to EPA for approval in 

2011. The changes to Regulation 1.07, 

which are being proposed for inclusion 

into the SIP today, revise the Jefferson 

County SSM rule to make it consistent 

with the CAA. 

If finalized, today’s action would 

approve part of the revision to the 

Jefferson County portion of the 

Kentucky SIP submitted by KDAQ, on 

behalf of the District, on March 22, 

2011. Approval of this revision would 

change the name of the regulation to 

‘‘Excess Emissions During Startups, 

Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions;’’ 

clarify that excess emissions due to 

startup, shutdown or upset condition 

shall be deemed in violation of the 

applicable emission standards; augment 

the source excess emission reporting 

requirements to improve air quality 

management; remove the authority of 

the District to grant discretionary 

exemptions from compliance with SIP 

emission standards during SSM events; 

remove the affirmative defense 

provision for emergencies; and 

explicitly state that the District’s 

decision not to exercise its own 

enforcement discretion would not 

preempt enforcement by EPA or other 

parties. Today’s action does not make 

any changes or propose any findings 

related to EPA’s completely separate 

rulemaking action regarding the current 

SIP-approved version of the Jefferson 

County SSM rule proposed on February 

22, 2013 (78 FR 12460). 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

portion of Kentucky’s March 22, 2011, 

SIP revision pertaining to Jefferson 

County Regulation 1.07, ‘‘Emissions 

During Startups, Shutdowns, 

Malfunctions and Emergencies.’’ This 

revision renames the regulation ‘‘Excess 

Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, 

and Upset Conditions’’ and makes 

numerous changes to the Jefferson 

County SSM rule to bring it into 

compliance with the CAA and EPA 

guidance regarding SIP provisions for 

the correct treatment of excess 

emissions from sources during SSM 

events. 

VI. 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 proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by 

Commonwealth 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.); 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 2013 / Proposed Rules 29687 

• 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 CAA; 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 Commonwealth, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: May 9, 2013. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12088 Filed 5–20–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 228 

[EPA–R06–OW–2013–0221; FRL–9814–7] 

Ocean Dumping; Atchafalaya-West 

Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site 

Designation 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to redesignate the existing Marine 

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 

Act of 1972 (MPRSA) Section 103(b) 

Atchafalaya-West Ocean Disposal Site 

(ODMDS-West) as a permanent MPRSA 

Section 102(c) ocean dredged material 

disposal site (ODMDS) located adjacent 

to and west of the Atchafalaya River Bar 

Channel (ARBC) of Louisiana. The 

approval for the ODMDS-West use 

expired in August 2012; therefore, the 

site can no longer accept shoal material 

dredged from the ARBC unless it is redesignated as a MPRSA Section 102(c) 

site by EPA. Studies have shown that 

use of the ODMDS-West reduces the 

amount and rate of shoal material 

runback into the ARBC, and thus, 

decreases the overall annual 

maintenance dredging effort needed for 

the ARBC while providing vessels with 

a longer period of safe navigation access 

prior to a maintenance dredging event. 

Therefore, there is a need to designate 

a permanent ODMDS on the west side 

of the ARBC. Approximately 10.8 

million cubic yards will be placed every 

7 months and must be conducted in 

accordance with the Site Management 

and Monitoring Plan. The proposed 

ODMDS will be monitored periodically 

to ensure that the site operates as 

expected. 

DATES: Comments. Comments on this 

proposed rule and draft Environmental 

Impact Statement must be received on 

or before July 5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OW–2013–0221, by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; follow the online 

instruction for submitting comments. 

• Email: Dr. Jessica Franks at 

franks.jessica@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC) at fax 

number 214–665–6689. 

• Mail: Dr. Jessica Franks, Marine and 

Coastal Section (6WQ–EC), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: (6WQ–EC), 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket No.EPA–R06–OW–2013–0221. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Marine and Coastal Section (6WQ– 

EC), Environmental Protection Agency, 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, 

Texas 75202–2733. The file will be 

made available by appointment for 

public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA 

Review Room between the hours of 8:30 

a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for 

legal holidays. Contact the person listed 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph below. If possible, 

please make the appointment at least 

two working days in advance of your 

visit. There will be a 15 cent per page 

fee for making photocopies of 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1