Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27165 

8As noted above, all necessary measures have 

been approved with the exception of RCSA sections 

22a–174–40 and 22a–174–44. EPA will take final 

action on these two regulations prior to finalizing 

today’s proposal. 

standard by the June 15, 2010 

attainment date. As explained above, 

Connecticut’s control strategy meets 

applicable EPA requirements, 

Connecticut’s photochemical grid 

modeling demonstrated that it would 

attain the standard by the attainment 

date, and, based on monitored ozone 

data the New York City area attained the 

standard by the attainment date. 

With respect to post-attainment date 

air quality data, EPA has a continuing 

obligation to review the air quality data 

each year, to determine whether areas 

are meeting the NAAQS, and EPA will 

continue to conduct such review in the 

future after the data are complete, 

quality-assured, certified and submitted 

to EPA. 

D. EPA’s Evaluation 

In summary, the photochemical grid 

modeling used by Connecticut in its 

February 1, 2008 SIP submittal meets 

EPA’s guidelines and is acceptable to 

EPA. Air quality data through 2011 

supports the conclusion that the New 

York City and Greater Connecticut areas 

did demonstrate attainment of the 8- 

hour ozone standard by their attainment 

date. The purpose of the attainment 

demonstration is to demonstrate how, 

through enforceable and approvable 

emission reductions, an area will meet 

the standard by the attainment date. All 

necessary ozone control measures have 

already been adopted, submitted, 

approved 8 and implemented. Based on 

(1) The state following EPA’s modeling 

guidance, (2) the air quality data 

through 2011, (3) the areas attaining the 

standard by the attainment date, and (4) 

the implemented SIP-approved control 

measures, EPA is proposing to approve 

the Connecticut ozone attainment 

demonstrations, including the RACM 

analyses for the Greater Connecticut 

area and for the Connecticut portion of 

the New York City area. For similar 

information about the New Jersey and 

New York portions of the New York City 

area, the reader is referred to EPA’s 

approval of the New Jersey and New 

York ozone attainment demonstrations 

published on February 11, 2013 (78 FR 

9596). 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

Connecticut ozone attainment 

demonstrations, including the RACM 

analyses, for both the Connecticut 

portion of the New York City moderate 

ozone nonattainment area and for the 

Greater Connecticut moderate ozone 

nonattainment area. EPA has evaluated 

Connecticut’s submittal for consistency 

with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA 

policy, and has considered all other 

information it deems relevant to 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, i.e., clean data determinations, 

determinations that the areas attained 

the standard by the applicable 

attainment date, statewide RACT, 

reasonable further progress plan 

approvals (including all applicable 

control strategy regulations), continued 

attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on quality assured and 

certified monitoring data through 2011, 

and the implementation of the more 

stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard. 

VI. 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, 

these actions: 

• Are not ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Are 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.); 

• Do 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); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not economically significant 

regulatory actions based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Are not significant regulatory 

actions subject to Executive Order 

13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are 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 

• Do 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2013. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA New England. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10929 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0746; FRL–9810–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Utah; Revisions 

to Utah Rule R307–107; General 

Requirements; Breakdowns 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

changes to Utah’s rule R307–107, which 

pertains to source emissions during 

breakdowns. On April 18, 2011, EPA 

finalized a rulemaking which found that 

the Utah State Implementation Plan 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
27166 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(SIP) was substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) or to 

otherwise comply with the requirements 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA) because it 

included rule R307–107. Concurrent 

with this finding, EPA issued a SIP call 

that required the State to revise its SIP 

by either removing R307–107 or 

correcting its deficiencies, and to submit 

the revised SIP to EPA by November 18, 

2012. On August 16, 2012, the State 

submitted to EPA revisions to R307– 

107. EPA is proposing that these 

revisions correct the rule’s deficiencies 

and, therefore, satisfy EPA’s April 18, 

2011 SIP call. If EPA finalizes its 

proposed approval, all sanctions clocks 

and the clock for EPA to promulgate a 

federal implementation plan (FIP) will 

end. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0746, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. Such 

deliveries are only accepted Monday 

through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0746. 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. 

For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

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 Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–7104, clark.adam@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. Revised Utah Rule R307–107 and EPA 

Analysis 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, the 

following definitions apply: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

iii. The initials FIP mean or refer to federal 

implementation plan. 

iv. The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

v. The initials NESHAPS mean or refer to 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants. 

vi. The initials NSPS mean or refer to New 

Source Performance Standards. 

vii. The initials SIP mean or refer to state 

implementation plan. 

viii. The initials SSM mean or refer to 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

ix. The words State or Utah mean the State 

of Utah, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

x. The initials UAQB mean or refer to the 

Utah Air Quality Board. 

xi. The initials UDAQ mean or refer to the 

Utah Division of Air Quality, Utah 

Department of Environmental Quality. 

xii. The words 1999 Policy mean or refer 

to the September 20, 1999 EPA Memorandum 

signed by Steven A. Herman, Assistant 

Administrator for Enforcement and 

Compliance Assurance, and Robert 

Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radiation, titled ‘‘State Implementation 

Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown.’’ 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 27167 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

On April 18, 2011, EPA published a 

final rulemaking in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 21639) that found that the Utah 

SIP was substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the NAAQS or to 

otherwise comply with the requirements 

of the CAA because it included rule 

R307–107. In particular, we explained 

that R307–107: (1) Did not treat all 

exceedances of SIP and permit limits as 

violations; (2) could have been 

interpreted to grant the Utah executive 

secretary exclusive authority to decide 

whether excess emissions constituted a 

violation; and (3) improperly applied to 

Federal technology-based standards 

such as New Source Performance 

Standards (NSPS) and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS). We concluded 

that R307–107 undermined EPA’s, 

Utah’s, and citizens’ ability to enforce 

emission limitations that have been 

relied on in the SIP to ensure attainment 

and maintenance of the NAAQS or meet 

other CAA requirements. 76 FR 21640. 

Accordingly, we issued a SIP call 

which required the State to revise its 

SIP by either removing R307–107 or 

correcting its deficiencies, and to submit 

the revised SIP to us by November 18, 

2012. Id. We also explained that if the 

State failed to submit a complete SIP 

revision by November 18, 2012, or if we 

disapproved a submitted SIP revision, 

clocks would be triggered for mandatory 

sanctions and for EPA to promulgate a 

FIP. Id. at 21640–41. 

On June 17, 2011, U.S. Magnesium 

challenged our SIP call in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 10th 

Circuit. On August 6, 2012, the 10th 

Circuit upheld EPA’s SIP call. 

On August 16, 2012, the State 

submitted to EPA revisions to R307–107 

for the purpose of correcting the 

deficiencies described in the SIP call. 

III. Revised Utah Rule R307–107 and 

EPA Analysis 

A. The Revised Rule 

The State substantially revised and 

simplified R307–107 in response to our 

SIP call. The rule now contains three 

sections—R307–107–1, ‘‘Applicability 

and Timing,’’ R307–107–2, ‘‘Reporting,’’ 

and R307–107–3, ‘‘Enforcement 

Discretion.’’ 

R307–107–1 requires the owner or 

operator of a source to report 

breakdowns to the director within 24 

hours of the incident (R307–107–1(1)), 

to be followed by a detailed written 

description of the incident and 

corrective program within 14 days of the 

start of the incident (R307–107–1(2)). 

Alternative reporting deadlines apply 

where emissions are monitored by 

continuous monitoring systems under 

R307–170, but even where these 

alternative deadlines apply, the reports 

must still contain the information 

required by R307–107–1(2) and R307– 

107–2. 

R307–107–2 requires breakdown 

incident reports to include the cause 

and nature of the event, estimated 

quantity of emissions, time of 

emissions, and other relevant evidence, 

including evidence that: 

1. There was an equipment 

malfunction beyond the reasonable 

control of the owner or operator; 

2. The excess emissions could not 

have been avoided by better operation, 

maintenance or improved design of the 

malfunctioning component; 

3. To the maximum extent 

practicable, the source maintained and 

operated the air pollution control 

equipment and process equipment in a 

manner consistent with good practice 

for minimizing emissions, including 

minimizing any bypass emissions; 

4. Any necessary repairs were made 

as quickly as practicable, using off-shift 

labor and overtime as needed and as 

possible; 

5. All practicable steps were taken to 

minimize the potential impact of the 

excess emissions on ambient air quality; 

and 

6. The excess emissions are not part 

of a recurring pattern that may have 

been caused by inadequate operation or 

maintenance, or inadequate design of 

the malfunctioning component. 

R307–107–2 also states that the owner 

or operator has the burden of proof to 

demonstrate the above elements. 

R307–107–3 states that the director 

will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, 

the information the owner or operator 

submits pursuant to R307–107–1 and 2 

‘‘to determine whether to pursue 

enforcement action.’’ 

The version of R307–107 that was the 

subject of our SIP call stated that 

‘‘emissions resulting from unavoidable 

breakdown will not be deemed a 

violation of these regulations.’’ This 

exemption, which was part of the reason 

for our SIP call, has been eliminated in 

the revised rule. The revised rule does 

not exempt exceedances of emissions 

limits caused by breakdowns. 

The version of R307–107 that was the 

subject of our SIP call required the 

source to submit information regarding 

an unavoidable breakdown to the 

executive secretary of Utah’s Air Quality 

Board and indicated that the 

information would be used by the 

executive secretary to determine 

‘‘whether a violation has occurred . . .’’ 

This provision was another reason for 

our SIP call because it appeared to give 

the executive secretary exclusive 

authority to determine whether excess 

emissions constituted a violation and 

thus to preclude independent 

enforcement action by EPA and citizens 

when the executive secretary made a 

non-violation determination. This 

problematic language, indicating that 

the State would determine whether a 

violation had occurred, has been 

eliminated in the revised rule. Instead, 

as expressed in R307–107–3, the 

director will use the submitted 

information to determine whether to 

pursue an enforcement action. The 

director’s decision not to pursue an 

enforcement action does not impact 

EPA’s or citizens’ ability to 

independently pursue an enforcement 

action in response to a given violation. 

B. EPA’s Analysis 

EPA’s interpretation is that the CAA 

requires that all periods of excess 

emissions, regardless of cause, be 

treated as violations and that automatic 

exemptions from emissions limits are 

not appropriate. This interpretation has 

been expressed in several documents. 

Most relevant to this action are the 

following: memorandum dated 

September 28, 1982, from Kathleen M. 

Bennett, Assistant Administrator for 

Air, Noise, and Radiation, entitled, 

‘‘Policy on Excess Emissions During 

Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions’’ (the 1982 Memorandum); 

a clarification to that memorandum 

from Kathleen M. Bennett issued on 

February 15, 1983 (the 1983 

Memorandum); and a memorandum 

dated September 20, 1999 entitled, 

‘‘State Implementation Plans: Policy 

Regarding Excess Emissions During 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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