Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 32613 

back to the Postmaster, which may take 

more than 10 days to complete, Package 

Intercept service provides mailers with 

an immediate avenue to request a COD 

article be redirected to a new address. 

Since items subject to Package Intercept 

requests are also held for a 10-day 

period, this option aligns with the 

proposed new holding period for COD 

articles. 

However, the ability for a mailer, after 

mailing, to adjust the COD amount to be 

collected will be eliminated when the 

Form 3849–D is retired. 

The USPS will continue to return 

COD articles to the mailer at the end of 

the holding period if no other applicable 

request is received; and to return COD 

mail addressed to an addressee who 

moved and left no forwarding address. 

Additionally, payment options for COD 

articles will be expanded to allow 

money orders made payable to the 

mailer as an additional acceptable 

payment method for the addressee at the 

time of delivery. Payment remittance 

mailpieces will now include unique 

tracking barcodes affixed by USPS 

allowing further visibility into the COD 

payment process through mail 

processing scans captured on the 

remittance en route to the recipient. 

Although we are exempt from the 

notice and comment requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 

553(b), (c)) regarding proposed 

rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), we 

invite public comments on the 

following proposed revisions to Mailing 

Standards of the United States Postal 

Service, Domestic Mail Manual (DMM), 

incorporated by reference in the Code of 

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 111.1. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Postal Service. 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 111—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 39 CFR 

part 111 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301– 

307; 18 U.S.C. 1692–1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 

401, 403, 404, 414, 416, 3001–3011, 3201– 

3219, 3403–3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3632, 

3633, and 5001. 

■ 2. Revise the following sections of 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM), as follows: 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

500 Additional Mailing Services 

* * * * * 

503 Extra Services 

* * * * * 

13.0 Collect on Delivery (COD) 

* * * * * 

13.2 Basic Information 

13.2.1 Description 

* * * [Revise the first, second and 

fourth sentences of 13.2.1 as follows:] 

Any mailer may use collect on 

delivery (COD) service to mail an article 

for which the mailer has not been paid 

and have its price and the cost of the 

postage collected from the addressee (or 

addressee’s agent). The recipient has the 

option to pay the COD charges using 

either cash, or a personal check or 

money order made payable to the 

mailer. * * * If the recipient pays the 

amount due by check or money order 

payable to the mailer, the USPS 

forwards the check or money order to 

the mailer. * * * 

* * * * * 

[Revise the title and text of 13.2.7 as 

follows:] 

13.2.7 Redirecting COD 

The mailer of a COD article may use 

USPS Package Intercept service to 

redirect the COD mailpiece to a new 

addressee, to a designated Post Office 

using Hold For Pickup service, or to the 

sender by paying the applicable fee and 

as provided in 507.5. 

[Delete 13.2.8, Notice to Mailer, in its 

entirety.] 

* * * * * 

507 Mailer Services 

* * * * * 

4.0 Address Correction Services 

* * * * * 

4.3 Sender Instruction 

* * * * * 

4.3.2 Extra Services 

* * * This mail is treated as follows: 

* * * 

[Revise item 4.3.2c as follows:] 

c. The mailer of a COD article also 

may use USPS Package Intercept service 

to redirect the COD mailpiece to a new 

addressee, to a designated Post Office 

using Hold For Pickup service, or to the 

sender by paying the applicable fee and 

as provided in 507.5. The USPS returns 

the article to the mailer at the end of the 

COD holding period if no other request 

is received. When COD mail is 

addressed to a person who moved and 

left no forwarding address, the article is 

returned to the mailer. The postage 

charge (but not registration or COD fees) 

for returning the mail, if any, is 

collected from the mailer. 

* * * * * 

[Revise item 4.3.2g as follows:] 

g. The USPS holds undeliverable 

collect on delivery (COD) mail for no 

fewer than 3 days and no more than 10 

days. 

* * * * * 

508 Recipient Services 

1.0 Recipient Options 

1.1 Basic Recipient Concerns 

* * * * * 

1.1.7 Express Mail and Accountable 

Mail 

The following conditions also apply 

to the delivery of Express Mail and 

accountable mail (Registered Mail, 

Certified Mail, insured for more than 

$200.00, or COD, as well as mail for 

which a return receipt or a return 

receipt for merchandise is requested or 

for which the sender has specified 

restricted delivery): 

* * * * * 

[Revise item 508.1.1.7f as follows:] 

f. A notice is provided to the 

addressee for a mailpiece that cannot be 

delivered. If the piece is not called for 

or redelivery is not requested, the piece 

is returned to the sender after 15 days 

(5 days for Express Mail, 10 days for 

COD), unless the sender specifies fewer 

days on the piece. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

* * * * * 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12885 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0298, FRL–9818–7] 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan; Infrastructure Requirements for 

the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard; Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32614 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a specific portion of the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

certifications submitted by the State of 

Montana to demonstrate that the SIP 

meets the infrastructure requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. The CAA requires that each 

state, after a new or revised NAAQS is 

promulgated, review its SIP to ensure 

that it meets certain infrastructure 

requirements detailed in the CAA. The 

State of Montana submitted two 

certifications, dated November 28, 2007 

and December 22, 2009, that its SIP met 

these requirements for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. EPA is proposing to 

disapprove a portion of the submitted 

revisions because the SIP does not meet 

the requirements in the CAA for state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 1, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2010–0298, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ayala.kathy@epa.gov 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 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–2010– 

0298. 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, 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: 

Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6142, 

ayala.kathy@epa.gov. 

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 NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(v) The words State or Montana mean 

the State of Montana, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Montana’s Submittal and EPA Analysis 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a 

new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour 

average concentrations. The 8-hour 

averaging period replaced the previous 

1-hour averaging period, and the level of 

the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 

FR 38856). 

By statute, SIPs meeting the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) are to be submitted by states within 

three years after promulgation of a new 

or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) 

provides basic requirements for SIPs, 

including emissions inventories, 

monitoring, and modeling, to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. These requirements are set 

out in several ‘‘infrastructure elements,’’ 

listed in section 110(a)(2). 

The State of Montana submitted two 

certifications of their infrastructure SIP 

for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, one dated 

November 28, 2007, which was 

determined to be complete on March 27, 

2008 (73 FR 16205), and another dated 

December 22, 2009. On May 19, 2011 

(76 FR 28934), EPA published a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the 

certifications. Among other things, the 

NPR proposed approval of the state’s 

submission for purposes of meeting the 

CAA infrastructure requirements under 

section 110(a)(2)(E), Adequate resources 

and authority, for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. During the comment period 

provided for the proposed rule, EPA 

received an adverse comment on EPA’s 

proposed approval with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The commenter 

stated that the Montana SIP did not 

contain adequate provisions to satisfy 

the requirements of CAA section 128 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 32615 

1Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy 

General Counsel, to Regional Air Directors, 

Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of Interest 

Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978). 

2H.R. Rep. 95–564 (1977), reprinted in 3 

Legislative History of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1977, 526–27 (1978). 

and was therefore inconsistent with 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

On July 22, 2011 (76 FR 43918), EPA 

published a final rule completing our 

action on all infrastructure elements 

except 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA took no 

action on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 

committed to do so at a later date. In 

this notice, we are proposing a new 

action on Montana’s certifications for 

the 1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

II. Montana’s Submittal and EPA 

Analysis 

Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA 

requires that ‘‘the State comply with the 

requirements respecting State boards 

under section 128.’’ 

Montana’s response to this 

requirement: The Montana Board of 

Environmental Review (BER) oversees 

the Montana DEQ, including actions 

taken by the State air program. The 

composition and requirements of the 

BER are detailed in 2–15–3502, 

Montana Code Annotated (MCA); 2–15– 

121, MCA; and 2–15–124, MCA. Laws 

related to conflict of interest in Montana 

state government are found in 2–2–201, 

MCA; and 2–2–202, MCA. 

EPA analysis: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

of the CAA requires that the State 

comply with section 128 of the CAA. 

Section 128 was added in the 1977 

amendments to the CAA as the result of 

a conference agreement. Titled ‘‘State 

boards,’’ it provides in relevant part: 

(a) Not later than the date one year 

after August 7, 1977, each applicable 

implementation plan shall contain 

requirements that— 

(1) Any board or body which 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under [this Act] shall have at least a 

majority of members who represent the 

public interest and do not derive any 

significant portion of their income from 

persons subject to permits or 

enforcement orders under [this Act], 

and, 

(2) Any potential conflicts of interest 

by members of such board or body or 

the head of an executive agency with 

similar powers be adequately disclosed. 

In 1978, EPA issued a guidance 

memorandum recommending ways 

states could meet the requirements of 

section 128, including suggested 

interpretations of certain key terms in 

section 128.1 In this notice, we 

additionally discuss various relevant 

aspects of section 128. We first note 

that, in the conference report on the 

1977 amendments to the CAA, the 

conference committee stated, ‘‘It is the 

responsibility of each state to determine 

the specific requirements to meet the 

general requirements of [section 128].’’ 2

We find that this legislative history 

indicates that Congress intended states 

to have some latitude in the specifics of 

implementing section 128, so long as 

the implementation is consistent with 

the plain text of the section. We also 

note that Congress explicitly provided 

in section 128 that states could elect to 

adopt more stringent requirements, as 

long as the minimum requirements of 

section 128 are met. As a result, we note 

three considerations for implementing 

section 128. 

First, section 128 must be 

implemented through provisions that 

EPA approves into the SIP and are made 

federally enforceable. Section 128 

explicitly mandates that each SIP ‘‘shall 

contain requirements’’ that satisfy 

subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A 

mere narrative description of state 

statutes or rules, or of a state’s current 

or past practice in constituting a board 

or body and in disclosing potential 

conflicts of interest, is not a requirement 

contained in the SIP and does not 

satisfy the plain text of section 128. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(1) applies 

only to states that have a board or body 

that is composed of multiple 

individuals and that, among its duties, 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. It does not apply in 

states that have no such multi-member 

board or body that performs these 

functions, and where instead a single 

head of an agency or other similar 

official approves permits or enforcement 

orders under the CAA. This flows from 

the text of section 128, for two reasons. 

First, as subsection 128(a)(1) refers to a 

majority of members in the plural, we 

think it reasonable to read subsection 

128(a)(1) as not creating any 

requirements for an individual with sole 

authority for approving permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA. 

Second, subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly 

applies to the head of an executive 

agency with ‘‘similar powers’’ to a board 

or body that approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

while subsection 128(a)(1) omits any 

reference to heads of executive agencies. 

We infer that subsection 128(a)(1) 

should not apply to heads of executive 

agencies who approve permits or 

enforcement orders. 

Third, subsection 128(a)(2) applies to 

all states, regardless of whether the state 

has a multi-member board or body that 

approves permits or enforcement orders 

under the CAA. Although the title of 

section 128 is ‘‘State boards,’’ the 

language of subsection 128(a)(2) 

explicitly applies where the head of an 

executive agency, rather than a board or 

body, approves permits or enforcement 

orders. In instances where the head of 

an executive agency delegates his or her 

power to approve permits or 

enforcement orders, or where statutory 

authority to approve permits or 

enforcement orders is nominally vested 

in another state official, the requirement 

to adequately disclose potential 

conflicts of interest still applies. In other 

words, EPA thinks that SIPs for all 

states, regardless of whether a state 

board or body approves permits or 

enforcement orders under the CAA, 

must contain adequate provisions for 

disclosure of potential conflicts of 

interest in order to meet the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). 

The Montana SIP does not contain 

provisions that meet the requirements of 

CAA section 128. As discussed above, 

section 128 must be implemented 

through SIP-approved, federally 

enforceable provisions. In particular, 

subsection 128(a)(2) applies in all states; 

in other words, all SIPs must contain 

provisions for the adequate disclosure of 

potential conflicts of interest. The 

Montana SIP does not currently contain 

any such provisions and is deficient 

with respect to the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(2). 

Furthermore, as cited by Montana in 

its certification, section 2–15–3502 of 

the MCA creates a Board of 

Environmental Review (‘‘Board’’). The 

Board consists of seven members 

appointed by the Governor and meeting 

certain statutory criteria. Under section 

75–2–211(10) of the MCA, a person who 

is directly and adversely affected by the 

Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality’s (MDEQ’s) approval or denial 

of a permit to construct an air pollution 

source may (with certain exceptions) 

request a hearing before the Board. 

Similarly, under section 75–2–218(5) of 

the MCA, a person who participated in 

the comment period on MDEQ’s 

issuance, renewal, amendment or 

modification of a title V operating 

permit may request a hearing before the 

Board. Finally, under section 75–2– 

401(1), a person who receives an 

enforcement order from MDEQ under 

Chapter 2 of Title 75, Air Quality, may 

request a hearing before the Board. 

Based on these State statutory 

provisions and our discussion above of 

the text of section 128(a)(1), we propose 

to conclude that the Board falls within 

the terms of subsection 128(a)(1); in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
32616 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

other words, the Board is a multimember body that has authority to 

approve permits and enforcement orders 

under the Act. The term ‘‘permits under 

the Act’’ includes Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration, nonattainment 

New Source Review, and minor New 

Source Review permits. These are all 

permits required to construct a new or 

modified stationary source, and, under 

MCA section 75–2–211(1), are 

potentially subject to a hearing before 

the Board. Permits under the Act also 

include title V operating permits, 

which, under MCA section 75–2–218(5), 

are potentially subject to a hearing 

before the Board. Similarly, enforcement 

orders under the Act are, under MCA 

section 75–2–401(1), potentially subject 

to a hearing before the Board. In short, 

the Board has authority to hear appeals 

of permits and enforcement orders 

under the Act. 

The Board’s authority to hear appeals 

is ‘‘authority to approve’’ within the 

meaning of section 128, for two reasons. 

First, the Board’s authority falls within 

the plain meaning of the word 

‘‘approve.’’ To approve means, among 

other things, ‘‘to give formal sanction 

to.’’ This is precisely what, for example, 

an order from the Board upholding a 

permit does: it formally sanctions the 

permit. Second, the contrary 

interpretation, that ‘‘authority to 

approve’’ does not include the Board’s 

authority to hear appeals, would be 

inconsistent with the structure and 

purpose of section 128. It would limit 

the applicability of subsection 128(a)(1) 

to multi-member boards that issue 

permits in the first instance. As the 

purpose of section 128 is to promote 

disinterested decision-making on 

permits and enforcement orders, it is 

paramount that section 128 should 

apply to the entity with authority to 

make the final decision, and not merely 

to the initial decision maker. In 

addition, due to the language ‘‘with 

similar powers’’ in subsection 128(a)(2), 

the contrary interpretation would lead 

to the illogical result that a state director 

who issues permits and enforcement 

orders that are subject to administrative 

appeal would fall under the disclosure 

requirement, but a director that was the 

final decision maker on permits and 

enforcement orders would not. 

As the Board has authority to approve 

permits and enforcement orders under 

the Act, it is subject to subsection 

128(a)(1). However, the Montana SIP 

does not currently contain any 

provisions to meet the requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(1) and therefore does 

not meet these requirements. As 

discussed above, the SIP also does not 

contain any provisions to meet the 

requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). As 

a result, we propose to disapprove the 

Montana infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS with respect to the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). 

We do not consider it necessary to 

identify any particular instances in 

which the Board’s actual composition in 

practice has failed to meet the 

compositional requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(1) or in which Board 

members in practice have failed to meet 

the disclosure requirements of 

subsection 128(a)(2). The proposed 

disapproval is based upon the Montana 

SIP itself, which simply fails to contain 

any provisions meeting the explicit legal 

requirements of these subsections. 

III. Proposed Action 

We propose to disapprove the 

Montana infrastructure SIP for the 1997 

ozone NAAQS for element 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Montana SIP does 

not contain provisions to meet the 

requirements of CAA section 128. 

IV. 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 or 

disapprove state choices, depending on 

whether they meet the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. With this proposed 

action EPA is merely disapproving a 

state law as not meeting Federal 

requirements, and is not imposing 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Because the proposed disapproval 

does not raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the EO, this proposed action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 

and is therefore not subject to review 

under Executive Orders 12866 and 

13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. In determining whether a rule 

has a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

EPA’s proposal consists of a proposed 

disapproval of a specific portion of the 

Montana infrastructure certification. 

The proposed disapproval of the SIP, if 

finalized, merely disapproves the state 

law as not meeting federal requirements 

and does not impose any additional 

requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action 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); 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 105 / Friday, May 31, 2013 / Proposed Rules 32617 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the State, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the State, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation under section 128 

of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this action. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicits comment on this proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be economically 

significant as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

we have reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. EPA 

interprets EO 13045 as applying only to 

those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed rule, if finalized, will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it disapproves a specific portion 

of the Montana SIP which does not meet 

requirements of the CAA. 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP 

being disapproved would not apply in 

Indian country located in the state, and 

it would 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. 

Dated: May 16, 2013. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2013–12970 Filed 5–30–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 721 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0918; FRL–9387–7] 

RIN 2070–AB27 

Proposed Modification of Significant 

New Uses of 1-Propene, 2,3,3,3- 

tetrafluoroAGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS