Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 63145 

comment, and therefore is issuing it 

with a 30-day comment period. 

Effect of Rulemaking 

Title 38 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, as proposed to be revised 

by this proposed rulemaking, would 

represent VA’s implementation of its 

legal authority on this subject. Other 

than future amendments to this 

regulation or governing statutes, no 

contrary guidance or procedures would 

be authorized. All existing or 

subsequent VA guidance would be read 

to conform with this rulemaking if 

possible or, if not possible, such 

guidance would be superseded by this 

rulemaking. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no 

provisions constituting a collection of 

information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary hereby certifies that 

this proposed regulatory amendment 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities as they are defined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612. Only States, dental insurers, certain 

veterans and their survivors and 

dependents, none of which are small 

entities, would be affected. Therefore, 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this 

rulemaking is exempt from the initial 

and final regulatory flexibility analysis 

requirements of sections 603 and 604. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, when regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ which requires 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), as ‘‘any regulatory action 

that is likely to result in a rule that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) Create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) Materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in this Executive Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this proposed regulatory 

action have been examined and it has 

been determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. VA’s impact analysis can be 

found as a supporting document at 

http://www.regulations.gov, usually 

within 48 hours after the rulemaking 

document is published. Additionally, a 

copy of the rulemaking and its impact 

analysis are available on VA’s Web site 

at http://www1.va.gov/orpm/, by 

following the link for ‘‘VA Regulations 

Published.’’ 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles for the 

programs affected by this document are 

64.009 Veterans Medical Care Benefits 

and 64.011 Veterans Dental Care. 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on September 16, 2013, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Dental health, Government 

contracts, Health care, Health 

professions, Health records, Veterans. 

Dated: October 17, 2013. 

William F. Russo, 

Deputy Director, Regulations Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 

CFR part 17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

■ 2. In § 17.169 add paragraph (g) to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.169 VA Dental Insurance Program for 

veterans and survivors and dependents of 

veterans (VADIP). 

* * * * * 

(g) Limited preemption of State and 

local law. To achieve important Federal 

interests, including but not limited to 

the assurance of the uniform delivery of 

benefits under VADIP and to ensure the 

operation of VADIP plans at the lowest 

possible cost to VADIP enrollees, 

paragraphs (b), (c)(1), (c)(2), (d), and 

(e)(2) through (e)(5) of this section 

preempt conflicting State and local 

laws, including laws relating to the 

business of insurance. Any State or local 

law, or regulation pursuant to such law, 

is without any force or effect on, and 

State or local governments have no legal 

authority to enforce them in relation to, 

the paragraphs referenced in this 

paragraph or decisions made by VA or 

a participating insurer under these 

paragraphs. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–24588 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0681; FRL–9901–85– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63146 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended 

by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Hawaii on February 13, 2013, pursuant 

to the requirements of of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or the Act) for the 2008 Lead 

(Pb) national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each state adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS 

promulgated by EPA. We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 22, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R09–OAR–2013–0681, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 415–947–3579. 

4. Mail or deliver: Dawn Richmond, 

Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. Deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office’s normal hours of operation. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

http://www.regulations.gov is an 

anonymous access system, and EPA will 

not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send 

email directly to EPA, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the public 

comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed directly 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dawn Richmond, Air Planning Office 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3207, 

richmond.dawn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

B. Regulatory History 

II. State Submittal and EPA Action 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Statutory Framework and Scope of 

Infrastructure SIPs 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

states to make a SIP submission within 

3 years after the promulgation of a new 

or revised primary NAAQS. Section 

110(a)(2) includes a list of specific 

elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan’’ 

submission must include. Many of the 

section 110(a)(2) SIP elements relate to 

the general information and authorities 

that constitute the ‘‘infrastructure’’ of a 

state’s air quality management program 

and SIP submittals that address these 

requirements are referred to as 

‘‘infrastructure SIPs.’’ These 

infrastructure SIP elements are as 

follows: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for 

enforcement of control measures and 

regulation of new stationary sources. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate 

pollution transport. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation 

with government officials, public 

notification, and prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) and 

visibility protection. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

Two elements identified in section 

110(a)(2) are not governed by the threeyear submission deadline of section 

110(a)(1) and are therefore not 

addressed in this action. These elements 

relate to part D of title I of the CAA, and 

submissions to satisfy them are not due 

within three years after promulgation of 

a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are 

due at the same time nonattainment area 

plan requirements are due under section 

172. The two elements are: (i) Section 

110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to 

permit programs required under part D 

(nonattainment New Source Review 

(NSR)), and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), 

pertaining to the nonattainment 

planning requirements of part D. As a 

result, this action does not address 

infrastructure elements related to the 

nonattainment NSR portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I). 

In addition, this rulemaking does not 

address three substantive issues that are 

not integral to acting on a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission: (i) 

Existing provisions related to excess 

emissions during periods of start-up, 

shutdown, or malfunction at sources 

(SSM), that may be contrary to the CAA 

and EPA’s policies addressing such 

excess emissions; (ii) existing provisions 

related to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or 

‘‘director’s discretion’’ that purport to 

permit revisions to SIP approved 

emissions limits with limited public 

process or without requiring further 

approval by EPA, that may be contrary 

to the CAA (director’s discretion); and, 

(iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule.’’ 1 Instead, EPA 

has indicated that it has other authority 

to address any such existing SIP defects 

in other rulemakings, as appropriate. A 

detailed rationale for why these issues 

are not part of the scope of 

infrastructure SIP rulemakings can be 

found in EPA’s proposed rule entitled, 

‘‘Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; Hawaii; 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 

Fine Particulate Matter National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards’’ in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 63147 

2 77 FR 21913, 21914 (April 12, 2012). That 

proposal also describes a similar rationale with 

respect to existing provisions for minor source NSR 

programs. However, that rationale is not relevant to 

today’s proposal, as EPA recently approved a 

comprehensive set of revisions to Hawaii’s previous 

minor source NSR rules. 77 FR 24148 (April 23, 

2012). 

3 73 FR 66964. The final rule was signed on 

October 15, 2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on November 12, 2008. The 1978 Pb 

standard (1.5 mg/m3 as a quarterly average) was 

modified to a rolling 3 month average not to exceed 

0.15 mg/m3. EPA also revised the secondary 

NAAQS to 0.15 mg/m3 and made it identical to the 

revised primary standard. 

4See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, to Regional Air Division Directors, 

Regions 1–10 (October 14, 2011). 

5A copy of the complete Hawaii Pb Infrastructure 

SIP submittal has been placed in the docket for this 

action. 

6 78 FR 12961. 

7 Id. 

section I.C (‘‘Scope of the Infrastructure 

SIP Evaluation’’).2

B. Regulatory Background 

On October 15, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised NAAQS for Pb.3 This action 

triggered a requirement for states to 

submit an infrastructure SIP to address 

the applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) by October 15, 2011. On 

October 14, 2011, EPA issued 

‘‘Guidance on Section 110 Infrastructure 

SIPs for the 2008 Pb NAAQS.’’ 4

II. State Submittal and EPA Action 

On February 13, 2013, the Hawaii 

Department of Health (HDOH) 

submitted the ‘‘Hawaii State 

Implementation Plan Revision for 2008 

Lead National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard Clean Air Act § 110(a)(1) & 

(2)’’ (Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP), 

which includes (1) an ‘‘Infrastructure 

SIP Certification of Adequacy,’’ (2) 

Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) 

section 11–60.1–90, (3) three technical 

support documents concerning 

interstate transport under 110(a)(2)(D) 

and (4) other supporting materials.5

On February 26, 2013, EPA found that 

Hawaii had failed to make a complete 

submittal to satisfy the requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb 

NAAQS.6 Specifically, EPA found 

Hawaii failed to submit the 

infrastructure SIP elements that relate to 

the prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program in CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

and (J).7 We also explained that, because 

EPA had already promulgated a FIP that 

addresses PSD-related requirements for 

Hawaii, the finding of failure to submit 

would not trigger any additional PSD 

FIP obligations. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 

Action 

EPA has evaluated the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP in relation to the 

infrastructure SIP requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2) and the applicable 

implementing regulations in 40 CFR 

Part 51. The Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this action, which 

is available in the docket to this action, 

includes our evaluation for each 

element, as well as our evaluation of 

HAR section 11–60.1–90. 

Based upon this analysis, EPA 

proposes to approve HAR section 11– 

60.1–90 into the Hawaii SIP. We also 

propose to approve the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

following requirements: 

• Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission 

limits and other control measures. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air 

quality monitoring/data system. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(C) (in part): 

Program for enforcement of control 

measures and regulation of new 

stationary sources (minor NSR program) 

only. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I): Interstate 

transport (significant contribution and 

interference with maintenance). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): 

Interstate transport (visibility protection 

only). 

• Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate 

resources and authority, conflict of 

interest, and oversight of local 

governments and regional agencies. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary 

source monitoring and reporting. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency 

episodes. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Public 

notification. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality 

modeling and submission of modeling 

data. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting 

fees. 

• Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/

participation by affected local entities. 

As explained above, we previously 

found the Hawaii Pb Infrastructure SIP 

incomplete with respect to the PSDrelated requirements of section 

110(a)(2). Under CAA section 

110(k)(1)(C), where EPA determines that 

a portion of a SIP submission is 

incomplete, ‘‘the State shall be treated 

as not having made the submission (or, 

in the Administrator’s discretion, part 

thereof).’’ Accordingly, we are not 

proposing to act on the Hawaii Pb 

Infrastructure SIP with respect to the 

PSD-related requirements in Sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

(42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves some state law 

as meeting federal requirements; this 

proposed action 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 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 State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
63148 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 205 / Wednesday, October 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: September 25, 2013. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24885 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0828; FRL–9901–54– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

additions and revisions to the 

monitoring and sulfur dioxide rules in 

the Indiana state implementation plan 

submitted on September 19, 2011. The 

monitoring rules will be used to 

determine whether various source 

categories are in compliance with the 

applicable emission limits. EPA is also 

proposing approval of a related 

definition submitted by Indiana on 

September 6, 2013. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0828, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP submission as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

Please note that if EPA receives adverse 

comment on an amendment, paragraph, 

or section of this rule and if that 

provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 18, 2013. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2013–24119 Filed 10–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0440; FRL–9901–84– 

Region4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Tennessee; 

Bristol; 2010 Lead Base Year 

Emissions Inventory and Conversion 

of Conditional Approvals for 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Lead 2010 base year emissions 

inventory State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Tennessee, through the Tennessee 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation (TDEC) on April 11, 2013. 

The emissions inventory was submitted 

to meet the requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) for the Bristol 

2008 Lead National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

nonattainment area (hereafter also 

referred to as the ‘‘Bristol Area’’ or 

‘‘Area’’). Additionally, EPA is proposing 

to convert conditional approvals to full 

approvals for Tennessee’s 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS, 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 2008 

ozone NAAQS infrastructure SIPs as 

they relate to adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that interfere with 

any other state’s required measures to 

prevent significant deterioration of its 

air quality. EPA conditionally approved 

these portions of Tennessee’s 

infrastructure submissions for these 

NAAQS on March 6, 2013, and March 

26, 2013. Tennessee has since met the 

obligations associated with these 

conditional approvals, and therefore, 

EPA is proposing to convert these 

conditional approvals to full approvals. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 22, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0440, 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– 

0440,’’ 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, 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’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0440. EPA’s policy is that all comments 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS