Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 32131 

Premiums and copayments will be paid 

by the insured in accordance with the 

terms of the insurance plan. Premiums 

and copayments will be determined by 

VA through the contracting process, and 

will be adjusted on an annual basis. The 

participating insurer will notify all 

insureds in writing of the amount and 

effective date of such adjustment. 

(2) Benefits. Participating insurers 

must offer, at a minimum, coverage for 

the following dental care and services: 

(i) Diagnostic services. 

(A) Clinical oral examinations. 

(B) Radiographs and diagnostic 

imaging. 

(C) Tests and laboratory examinations. 

(ii) Preventive services. 

(A) Dental prophylaxis. 

(B) Topical fluoride treatment (office 

procedure). 

(C) Sealants. 

(D) Space maintenance. 

(iii) Restorative services. 

(A) Amalgam restorations. 

(B) Resin-based composite 

restorations. 

(iv) Endodontic services. 

(A) Pulp capping. 

(B) Pulpotomy and pulpectomy. 

(C) Root canal therapy. 

(D) Apexification and recalcification 

procedures. 

(E) Apicoectomy and periradicular 

services. 

(v) Periodontic services. 

(A) Surgical services. 

(B) Periodontal services. 

(vi) Oral surgery. 

(A) Extractions. 

(B) Surgical extractions. 

(C) Alveoloplasty. 

(D) Biopsy. 

(vii) Other services. 

(A) Palliative (emergency) treatment 

of dental pain. 

(B) Therapeutic drug injection. 

(C) Other drugs and/or medications. 

(D) Treatment of postsurgical 

complications. 

(E) Crowns. 

(F) Bridges. 

(G) Dentures. 

(3) Selection of participating insurer. 

VA will use the Federal competitive 

contracting process to select a 

participating insurer, and the insurer 

will be responsible for the 

administration of VADIP. 

(d) Enrollment. (1) VA, in connection 

with the participating insurer, will 

market VADIP through existing VA 

communication channels to notify all 

eligible persons of their right to 

voluntarily enroll in VADIP. The 

participating insurer will prescribe all 

further enrollment procedures, and VA 

will be responsible for confirming that 

a person is eligible under paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(2) The initial period of enrollment 

will be for a period of 12 calendar 

months, followed by month-to-month 

enrollment, subject to paragraph (e)(5) 

of this section, as long as the insured 

remains eligible for coverage under 

paragraph (b) of this section and 

chooses to continue enrollment, so long 

as VA continues to authorize VADIP. 

(3) The participating insurer will 

agree to continue to provide coverage to 

an insured who ceases to be eligible 

under paragraphs (b)(1) through (2) of 

this section for at least 30 calendar days 

after eligibility ceased. The insured 

must pay any premiums due during this 

30-day period. This 30-day coverage 

does not apply to an insured who is 

disenrolled under paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(e) Disenrollment. (1) Insureds may be 

involuntarily disenrolled at any time for 

failure to make premium payments. 

(2) Insureds must be permitted to 

voluntarily disenroll, and will not be 

required to continue to pay any 

copayments or premiums, under any of 

the following circumstances: 

(i) For any reason, during the first 30 

days that the beneficiary is covered by 

the plan, if no claims for dental services 

or benefits were filed by the insured. 

(ii) If the insured relocates to an area 

outside the jurisdiction of the plan that 

prevents the use of the benefits under 

the plan. 

(iii) If the insured is prevented by 

serious medical condition from being 

able to obtain benefits under the plan. 

(iv) If the insured would suffer severe 

financial hardship by continuing in 

VADIP. 

(v) For any reason during the monthto-month coverage period, after the 

initial 12-month enrollment period. 

(3) All insured requests for voluntary 

disenrollment must be submitted to the 

insurer for determination of whether the 

insured qualifies for disenrollment 

under the criteria in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this section. Requests for 

disenrollment due to a serious medical 

condition or financial hardship must 

include submission of written 

documentation that verifies the 

existence of a serious medical condition 

or financial hardship. The written 

documentation submitted to the insurer 

must show that circumstances leading 

to a serious medical condition or 

financial hardship originated after the 

effective date coverage began, and will 

prevent the insured from maintaining 

the insurance benefits. 

(4) If the participating insurer denies 

a request for voluntary disenrollment 

because the insured does not meet any 

criterion under paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this section, the 

participating insurer must issue a 

written decision and notify the insured 

of the basis for the denial and how to 

appeal. The participating insurer will 

establish the form of such appeals 

whether orally, in writing, or both. The 

decision and notification of appellate 

rights must be issued to the insured no 

later than 30 days after the request for 

voluntary disenrollment is received by 

the participating insurer. The appeal 

will be decided and that decision issued 

in writing to the insured no later than 

30 days after the appeal is received by 

the participating insurer. An insurer’s 

decision of an appeal is final. 

(5) Month-to-month enrollment, as 

described in paragraph (d)(2) of this 

section, may be subject to conditions in 

insurance contracts, whereby upon 

voluntarily disenrolling, an enrollee 

may be prevented from re-enrolling for 

a certain period of time as specified in 

the insurance contract. 

(f) Other appeals procedures. 

Participating insurers will establish and 

be responsible for determination and 

appeal procedures for all issues other 

than voluntary disenrollment. 

(Authority: Sec. 510, Pub. L. 111–163) 

(The Office of Management and Budget has 

approved the information collection 

requirement in this section under control 

number 2900–0789.) 

[FR Doc. 2013–12642 Filed 5–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0712; FRL–9817–1] 

Revision to the Washington State 

Implementation Plan; Tacoma-Pierce 

County Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the Washington 

Department of Ecology (Ecology) dated 

November 28, 2012. The EPA’s final 

rulemaking approves two revisions to 

the SIP. First, the EPA is approving the 

‘‘2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and 

Documentation’’ included as Appendix 

A to the SIP revision. The emissions 

inventory was submitted to meet Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirements related to 

the Tacoma-Pierce County 

nonattainment area for the 2006 fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
32132 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

1A design value is a three year average used to 

determine compliance with the 2006 PM2.5 24-hour 

NAAQS of 35 mg/m3. Final design values generally 

are certified in June or July after a complete quality 

assurance and quality control process. 

(NAAQS). Second, the EPA is approving 

updated rules submitted by Ecology on 

behalf of the Puget Sound Clean Air 

Agency (PSCAA), contained in 

Appendix B, ‘‘SIP Strengthening Rules.’’ 

The updated PSCAA rules help 

implement the recommendations of the 

Tacoma-Pierce County Clean Air Task 

Force, an advisory committee of 

community leaders, citizen 

representatives, public health advocates, 

and other affected parties, formed to 

develop PM2.5 reduction strategies. 

DATES: This final rule is effective June 

28, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this Action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2012–0712. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information the disclosure 

of which 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 at 

the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air 

Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. 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: Jeff 

Hunt at telephone number: (206) 553– 

0256, email address: hunt.jeff@epa.gov, 

or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(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 ‘‘SIP’’ mean or refer 

to State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words ‘‘Washington’’ and 

‘‘State’’ mean the State of Washington. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Response to Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

Detailed information on the history of 

the PM2.5 NAAQS as it relates to the 

Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment 

area is included in the EPA’s proposal 

for this action (78 FR 4804, January 23, 

2013). As discussed in the proposal, on 

September 4, 2012, the EPA published 

a final ‘‘clean data’’ determination of 

attainment, based upon complete 

certified ambient air monitoring data 

showing that the Tacoma-Pierce County 

nonattainment area met the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS for the 2009–2011 monitoring 

period (77 FR 53772). Since the 

determination, monitored PM2.5 levels 

continue to decline in the TacomaPierce County nonattainment area. 

Monitoring data for 2010–2012 show a 

preliminary design value of 28 mg/m3.1

The clean data determination 

suspended the obligation for the State of 

Washington to submit an attainment 

demonstration, associated reasonably 

available control measures, a reasonable 

further progress plan, contingency 

measures, and other SIP revisions 

related to attainment of the standard for 

so long as the nonattainment area 

continues to meet the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. However, a clean data 

determination does not suspend the 

obligation under CAA section 172(c)(3) 

for submission and approval of a 

comprehensive, accurate, and current 

inventory of actual emissions. 

Accordingly, Ecology submitted 

Appendix A, titled ‘‘2008 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory and 

Documentation,’’ of its November 28, 

2012, SIP revision to meet the emissions 

inventory obligation under CAA section 

172(c)(3). Ecology also submitted 

Appendix B of the SIP revision, titled 

‘‘SIP Strengthening Rules,’’ which 

contained the most recent version of 

Regulation 1—Article 13: Solid Fuel 

Burning Device Standards, adopted by 

the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency 

Board on October 25, 2012, imposing 

more stringent standards to control 

PM2.5 emissions from wood smoke. The 

EPA proposed to approve both 

Appendix A and Appendix B of 

Washington’s November 28, 2012, SIP 

revision consistent with sections 110 

and 172 of the CAA. 

II. Response to Comments 

The EPA received no comment on its 

proposed approval of Appendix B. On 

February 22, 2013, EPA received one 

comment on its proposed approval of 

Appendix A. This comment, submitted 

by Mr. Robert Ukeiley on behalf of 

Sierra Club, focused on the potential 

impact of coal export terminals 

proposed for the Pacific Northwest. The 

commenter wrote that Ecology’s 2008 

Baseline Emissions Inventory does not 

sufficiently address potential impacts as 

they relate to current or future 

shipments of coal via rail through the 

Tacoma-Pierce County nonattainment 

area. The EPA is responding to this 

comment in two parts: (1) Comment on 

Fugitive Coal Dust Emissions; and (2) 

Comment on Railroad Emission 

Calculations. 

A. Comment on Fugitive Coal Dust 

Emissions 

Comment: The commenter wrote that 

Ecology’s 2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory does not meet the CAA 

section 172(c)(3) requirement which 

states that, ‘‘[s]uch plan provisions shall 

include a comprehensive, accurate, 

current inventory of actual emissions 

from all sources of the relevant 

pollutant or pollutants in such area, 

including such periodic revisions as the 

Administrator may determine necessary 

to assure the requirements of this part 

are met.’’ Specifically, the commenter 

wrote that the 2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory is not comprehensive because 

it did not account for fugitive coal dust 

emissions from coal trains that may 

have transited through the 

nonattainment area. The commenter 

also requests that ‘‘[i]f the current 

fugitive coal dust emissions are zero 

because there are no coal trains 

traveling through the Tacoma 

nonattainment area, then the inventory 

should say that.’’ 

Response: As noted in the proposal 

for this action, the EPA referred to the 

August 2005 ‘‘Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone 

and Particulate Matter NAAQS and 

Regional Haze Regulations’’ (hereafter 

‘‘emissions inventory guidance’’ or 

‘‘guidance’’), to assess the adequacy of 

Washington’s submission. The guidance 

covers several elements related to this 

comment. First, the mobile source 

section in the guidance contains no 

discussion or requirement for 

calculating fugitive dust from 

locomotive payloads. Instead, fugitive 

dust emissions from all source 

categories are discussed in section 5.4 of 

the guidance addressing nonpoint 

sources. The guidance states, 

‘‘[n]onpoint sources are generally 

described as those sources that are too 

small, numerous, or difficult to be 

inventoried individually. Potential 

nonpoint sources of emissions are given 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 32133 

in Table 5.4–1 and potential crustal 

(dust) sources of PM emissions are in 

Table 5.4–2. These tables are presented 

as guides to assist State, local and Tribal 

agencies in focusing their nonpoint 

source emission inventory efforts.’’ The 

guidance goes on to state, ‘‘[t]he State, 

local and Tribal agencies may want to 

concentrate their efforts on the most 

significant source categories.’’ The 

guidance acknowledges that States 

cannot individually inventory all 

nonpoint source emissions, but should 

use the best available data to inform 

which nonpoint source categories to 

focus on in creating a comprehensive 

and accurate inventory of actual 

emissions. 

As part of the effort to focus on the 

most significant source categories, 

Ecology conducted extensive speciation 

analysis included in the docket for the 

EPA’s proposed action, see Sources of 

Fine Particles in the Wapato HillsPuyallup River Valley PM2.5

Nonattainment Area (the name formerly 

used for the Tacoma-Pierce County 

nonattainment area), April 2010. 

Speciation analysis, also called receptor 

modeling or source apportionment, is a 

method of using chemical signatures 

from monitoring samples to determine 

both the types of emission sources 

impacting a monitor and the magnitude 

of those source impacts. The study 

examined monitoring samples from 

2006 to 2009 and used chemical 

signature information to identify the 

relevant emission sources. Ecology 

determined that 4% of PM2.5 annually in 

the Tacoma-Pierce County 

nonattainment area originated from the 

combination of all fugitive dust sources. 

To put this number in perspective, the 

contribution from fugitive dust was only 

slightly greater than the PM2.5

contribution from sea salt. The percent 

contribution from fugitive dust was also 

found to be the lowest during winter 

months when violations of the 2006 

PM2.5 standard occur. From an analysis 

of fugitive dust impacts and wind 

direction, Ecology concluded that the 

majority of the PM2.5 related fugitive 

dust was likely re-suspended dust from 

on-road motor vehicle traffic and 

fugitive emissions from a gravel 

operation near the monitoring site. 

Ecology’s speciation analysis for the one 

violating Tacoma monitor on South L 

Street concluded by stating, ‘‘[f]ugitive 

dust was poorly correlated with total 

PM2.5 mass (r2 = 0.19) indicating that its 

influence on the measured total mass 

was not significant.’’ 

As described above, the 2005 

emissions inventory guidance 

recognizes that agencies may need to 

concentrate their efforts on the most 

significant source categories, and the 

closely related regulations at 40 CFR 

51.20 for reporting under the National 

Emissions Inventory (NEI) also state, 

‘‘[n]onpoint source categories or 

emission events reasonably estimated by 

the State to represent a de minimis 

percentage of total county and State 

emissions of a given pollutant may be 

omitted.’’ Based on Ecology’s analysis of 

fugitive dust impacts on 2006 PM2.5

concentrations in the area, the EPA 

agrees with Ecology that fugitive dust 

emissions from railroad transport of coal 

do not constitute a significant source 

category for the 2008 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory. To the extent that 

the commenter raises issues related to 

coal export proposals that may impact 

the Tacoma-Pierce County 

nonattainment area in the future, or to 

the calculation of changes to the 

emission sources after 2008, the EPA 

has determined that these questions are 

beyond the scope of the 2008 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory. The inventory 

required under section 172(c)(3) does 

not require submission or assessment of 

future emissions. 

The EPA also concludes that the 2008 

Baseline Emissions Inventory accurately 

represents the emission sources that led 

to the EPA’s nonattainment designation 

for Tacoma-Pierce County in 2009. In 

particular, the inventory informed and 

helped support development of the 

residential wood smoke control 

measures approved in this action. In 

2008, residential wood combustion 

represented 74% of all emissions during 

the critical winter season, well above all 

other emission sources. To the extent 

that the mix of emission sources may 

change over time from the 2008 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory, the EPA believes 

these changes are best addressed as part 

of the maintenance plan inventory 

process to ensure continued compliance 

with the NAAQS, or as part of the 

attainment planning requirements that 

would become applicable should the 

area not continue in attainment. In 

response to the concerns raised by the 

commenter, the EPA independently 

analyzed publicly available data from 

the speciation monitor and found no 

evidence of increasing fugitive dust 

trends from 2008 to 2011. See Tacoma 

PMF Soil Results, included in the docket 

for this action. As noted previously, 

monitored PM2.5 levels in the 

nonattainment area continue to decline 

below the level of the NAAQS. For the 

reasons stated above, the EPA has 

determined that Ecology’s 2008 Baseline 

Emissions Inventory is consistent with 

applicable guidance and satisfies the 

requirement of CAA section 172(c)(3). 

B. Comment on Railroad Emission 

Calculations 

Comment: The commenter notes that 

Ecology’s 2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory submission includes only a 

summary of emissions from railroad 

locomotive diesel consumption, without 

the corresponding background 

information used to calculate the 

estimates. The commenter states that the 

background information is necessary for 

both public understanding and for 

future conformity obligations under the 

CAA. 

Response: Since emission control 

measures for railroad locomotive traffic 

are generally formulated and managed 

at the federal level, it is understandable 

that the State SIP submission would 

include summary data rather than a 

more elaborate discussion of underlying 

data. Ecology did include an extensive 

explanation of the underlying data for 

the predominant source categories, such 

as residential wood combustion, which 

comprises 74% of the winter time 

inventory. By contrast, emissions from 

all nonroad vehicles and engines, 

including railroad locomotives, account 

for only 5% of wintertime inventory. 

Moreover, although Ecology included 

only summary results for railroad 

emissions, it clearly referenced the 

documentation used in calculating the 

final railroad diesel emissions, listed as 

endnotes 26, 27, and 28 in the 2008 

Baseline Emissions Inventory SIP 

submission. These documents were 

available from Ecology and the EPA 

during the comment period, and remain 

available for public review. Neither the 

EPA nor Ecology has received a request 

for these documents. For the 

convenience of the reader these 

background documents have been 

added to the docket for this action. 

The comment only questions the level 

of detail in the discussion of the 

locomotive emission calculations and 

states that a comprehensive and 

accurate emissions inventory must 

provide figures of gallons of diesel 

consumed and emission factors or other 

calculations used in the emissions 

estimates. The availability of the 

additional detail requested by the 

comment is described above. 

Specifically, the emission factors were 

based on standard EPA emission factors 

for locomotives and fuel consumption 

data was provided by the rail freight 

carriers operating in the area. As the 

comment notes, these data are part of 

the comprehensive and accurate 

emissions inventory required by section 

172(c)(3), and were appropriately relied 

upon by Ecology to calculate diesel 

emissions from locomotives. The EPA 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
32134 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

independently calculated the 

locomotive emissions estimates based 

on the information referenced in 

endnotes 26, 27, and 28 of the State’s 

emissions inventory SIP submission, 

and obtained results that were 

consistent with the State’s (see EPA 

review of emission calculations.xlsx). 

To the extent that the commenter 

raises issues related to future conformity 

determinations or potential coal export 

proposals that may impact the TacomaPierce County nonattainment area in the 

future, or to the calculation of changes 

to the emission sources after 2008, the 

EPA has determined that these 

questions are beyond the scope of the 

2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and 

the requirements of section 172(c)(3). 

III. Final Action 

The EPA has determined that 

Washington’s SIP revisions, dated 

November 28, 2012, are consistent with 

sections 110 and 172 of the CAA. 

Therefore, we are approving the SIP 

revisions, specifically Appendix A, 

‘‘2008 Baseline Emissions Inventory and 

Documentation’’ and Appendix B, ‘‘SIP 

Strengthening Rules.’’ 

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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, 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 rule 

neither imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribal governments, 

nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. Consistent with EPA policy, the 

EPA nonetheless provided a 

consultation opportunity to the 

Puyallup Tribe in a letter dated 

December 11, 2012. The EPA did not 

receive a request for consultation. 

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 July 29, 2013. 

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. 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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, 

and Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: May 13, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

40 CFR part 52 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 WW—Washington 

■ 2. Section 52.2470 is amended: 

■ a. In paragraph (c) Table 4 by revising 

entries 13.01 through 13.05, adding in 

numerical order entry 13.06, and 

revising entry 13.07. 

■ b. In paragraph (e) by adding a 

heading for ‘‘Recently Approved Plans’’ 

and a new entry for ‘‘Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5) 2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory and SIP Strengthening Rules’’ 

at the end of the table. 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 32135 

TABLE 4—PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State adopted 

date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

Regulation 1—Article 13: Solid Fuel Burning Device Standards 

13.01 ....................................... Policy and Purpose ................ 10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.02 ....................................... Definitions .............................. 10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.03 ....................................... Opacity Standards ................. 10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.04 ....................................... Allowed and Prohibited Fuel 

Types.

10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.05 ....................................... Restrictions on Operation of 

Solid Fuel Burning Devices.

10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.06 ....................................... Emission Performance Standards.10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

13.07 ....................................... Prohibitions on Wood Stoves 

that are not Certified Wood 

Stoves.

10/25/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

STATE OF WASHINGTON NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Recently Approved Plans 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 

2008 Baseline Emissions 

Inventory and SIP 

Strengthening Rules.

Tacoma, Pierce County ........ 11/28/12 5/29/13 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

[FR Doc. 2013–12514 Filed 5–28–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0147; FRL–9816–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Atlanta, Georgia 

1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment 

Area; Reasonable Further Progress 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision, 

submitted by the State of Georgia, 

through the Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division (GA EPD), on 

October 21, 2009, to address the 

reasonable further progress (RFP) plan 

requirements for the Atlanta, Georgia 

1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area. The Atlanta, 

Georgia 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘the Area’’) is 

comprised of Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, 

Cherokee, Clayton, Cobb, Coweta, 

Dekalb, Douglas, Fayette, Forsyth, 

Fulton, Gwinnett, Hall, Henry, Newton, 

Paulding, Rockdale, Spalding and 

Walton Counties in Georgia. EPA is also 

finding adequate the motor vehicle 

emissions budgets (MVEB) for volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) that were included in 

Georgia’s RFP plan. Further, EPA is 

approving these MVEB. Additionally, as 

an administrative update EPA is also 

removing the numbering system from 

the non-regulatory provisions in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

July 29, 2013 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by June 28, 2013. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES