12572 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart S—Kentucky 

■ 2. Section 52.920(e), is amended by 

adding new entries at the end of the 

table for ‘‘Huntington-Ashland 8-Hour 

Ozone Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’, ‘‘Lexington Section 110(a)(1) 

Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard’’, and ‘‘Edmonson 

County Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA—APPROVED KENTUCKY NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

*****

Huntington—Ashland Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for the 1997 8–Hour Ozone Standard.A portion of Greenup 

County.

5/27/2008 3/25/2008 

[Insert citation of publication].

Lexington Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance Plan for 

the 1997 8–Hour Ozone Standard.

Fayette and Scott Counties.5/27/2008 3/25/2008 

[Insert citation of publication].

Edmonson County Section 110(a)(1) Maintenance 

Plan for 1997 8–Hour Ozone Standard.

Edmonson County .......... 5/27/2008 3/25/2008 

[Insert citation of publication].

[FR Doc. E9–6601 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0093; FRL–8779–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Volatile Organic Compound 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology for Reynolds Consumer 

Products Company 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision pertains to a State operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from 

Reynolds Consumer Products Company 

located in Richmond, Virginia. The 

submittal is for the purpose of meeting 

the requirements for reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) in 

order to implement the maintenance 

plan for the Richmond 8-hour ozone 

maintenance area. EPA is approving the 

revision to the Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 26, 

2009 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse written comment by 

April 24, 2009. If EPA receives such 

comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2009–0093 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0093, 

Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air Quality 

Planning, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2009– 

0093. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12573 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia, 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

RACT is the lowest emission limit 

that a particular source is capable of 

meeting by the application of control 

technology that is reasonably available 

with the consideration of technological 

and economic feasibility. See, e.g., 72 

FR 20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). 

When the Richmond area was originally 

designated as an ozone nonattainment 

area under the 1-hour standard, it was 

classified as moderate and thereby had 

to meet the non-CTG RACT 

requirements of section 182 of the CAA. 

As part of the 1-hour ozone attainment 

plan, one of the sources located in the 

area identified as being subject to nonCTG RACT was Reynolds Metals 

Company. The company’s Richmond 

Foil Plant produces aluminum foil by 

rolling aluminum into very thin sheets. 

VOC emissions at this plant come from 

lubricants used on 16 foil rolling mills. 

The Reynolds Consumer Products 

Company located in Richmond, Virginia 

underwent RACT analysis, and a 

consent order was issued to the facility 

on December 18, 1987. The order was 

then submitted to EPA as a SIP revision, 

and approved into the Commonwealth’s 

SIP on August 20, 1990 (55 FR 33904). 

On September 22, 2004, under the 

new 8-hour ozone standard, the 

Richmond area was classified as a 

marginal nonattainment area. On 

September 20, 2006, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ) formally submitted a request 

to redesignate the Richmond area from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. On September 25, 

2006, the VADEQ submitted a 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 

area as a SIP revision to ensure 

continued attainment. The 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan were approved on June 1, 2007 (72 

FR 30485). Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 

CAA stipulates that for an area to be 

redesignated, EPA must approve a 

maintenance plan that meets the 

requirements of Section 175A. All 

applicable nonattainment area 

requirements remain in place. The plan 

includes a demonstration that emissions 

will remain within the 2005 levels for 

a 10-year period by keeping in place key 

elements of the current federal and state 

regulatory programs, including case-bycase RACT requirements for the area. 

Because the Richmond area in which 

this facility is located has continuously 

been classified as either a 

nonattainment or a maintenance area, 

the RACT requirements remain in effect 

and a change to the facility’s RACT 

requirements necessitates a change to 

the SIP. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On October 20, 2008, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a 

formal revision to its SIP. The SIP 

revision consists of a State operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of emissions of VOCs 

from Reynolds Consumer Products 

Company located in Richmond, 

Virginia. The submittal is for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements for 

RACT in order to implement the 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 8- 

hour ozone maintenance area. 

Reynolds seeks the option of using 

less expensive and more readily 

available materials should the need 

arise due to recent costs and availability 

of the currently used material. A State 

operating permit, intended to replace 

the consent order for the facility, has 

been submitted to ensure compliance 

with the non-CTG RACT requirements. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, 

precludes granting a privilege to 

documents and information ‘‘required 

by law,’’ including documents and 

information ‘‘required by Federal law to 

maintain program delegation, 

authorization or approval,’’ since 

Virginia must ‘‘enforce Federally 

authorized environmental programs in a 

manner that is no less stringent than 

their Federal counterparts * * *’’ The 

opinion concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding 

§ 10.1–1198, therefore, documents or 

other information needed for civil or 

criminal enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
12574 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is approving Virginia’s Reynolds 

Consumer Products Company State 

operating permit SIP revision for the 

purpose of meeting the requirements for 

RACT in order to implement the 

maintenance plan for the Richmond 8- 

hour ozone maintenance area. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on May 26, 2009 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by April 24, 2009. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 May 26, 2009. 

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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

This action approving Virginia’s SIP 

revision pertaining to a State operating 

permit containing terms and conditions 

for the control of emissions of VOCs 

from the Reynolds Consumer Products 

Company 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, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 24, 2009. 

William T. Wisniewski, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by adding the entry for 

Reynolds Consumer Products Company 

at the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.2420 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 56 / Wednesday, March 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 12575 

EPA-APPROVED SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Source name Permit/order or registration number 

State effective date EPA approval date 40 CFR part 52 

citation 

* * * * * * * 

Reynolds Consumer Products 

Company.

Registration No. 50534 ................. 10/1/08 03/25/09 .........................................

[Insert page number where the 

document begins].

52.2420(d)(12) 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–6663 Filed 3–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0074; FRL–8785–4] 

RIN 2060–AG21 

Performance Specification 16 for 

Predictive Emissions Monitoring 

Systems and Amendments to Testing 

and Monitoring Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

promulgate Performance Specification 

(PS) 16 for predictive emissions 

monitoring systems (PEMS). 

Performance Specification 16 provides 

testing requirements for assessing the 

acceptability of PEMS when they are 

initially installed. Currently, there are 

no Federal rules requiring the use of 

PEMS; however, some sources have 

obtained Administrator approval to use 

PEMS as alternatives to continuous 

emissions monitoring systems (CEMS). 

Other sources may desire to use PEMS 

in cases where initial and operational 

costs are less than CEMS and process 

optimization for emissions control may 

be desirable. Performance Specification 

16 will apply to any PEMS required in 

future rules in 40 CFR Parts 60, 61, or 

63, and in cases where a source 

petitions the Administrator and receives 

approval to use a PEMS in lieu of 

another emissions monitoring system 

required under the regulation. We are 

also finalizing minor technical 

amendments. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0074. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. 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, 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 

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

copy at the Performance Specification 

16 for Predictive Emission Monitoring 

Systems Docket, Docket ID No. EPA– 

OAR–2003–0074, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. This Docket Facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through 

Friday excluding legal holidays. The 

docket telephone number is (202) 566– 

1742. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Foston Curtis, Air Quality Assessment 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (E143–02), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number (919) 541– 

1063; fax number (919) 541–0516; email address: curtis.foston@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

II. Where Can I Obtain a Copy of This 

Action? 

III. Background 

IV. This Action 

A. PS–16 

B. Method 24 of Appendix A–7 of Part 60 

C. Performance Specification 11 of 

Appendix B of Part 60 

D. Procedures 1 and 2 of Appendix F of 

Part 60 

E. Method 303 of Appendix A of Part 63 

V. Public Comments on the Proposed Rule 

A. Parameter Operating Level Terminology 

B. PS–16 Applicability to Market-Based 

Programs 

C. PS–16 and the Older Draft Performance 

Specifications on the EPA Web site 

D. PEMS Relative Accuracy Stringency vs 

CEMS Stringency 

E. Alternative Limits for Low Emitters 

F. Statistical Tests 

G. Use of Portable Analyzers for the 

Relative Accuracy Audit 

H. Potential Overlap Between PS–16 and 

PS–17 

I. Reduced Relative Accuracy Audit 

Frequency for Good Performance 

VI. Judicial Review 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

I. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Predictive emission monitoring 

systems are not currently required in 

any Federal rule. However, they may be 

used under certain New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) to 

predict nitrogen oxides emissions from 

small industrial, commercial, and 

institutional steam generating units. In 

some cases, PEMS have been approved 

as alternatives to CEMS for the initial 

30-day compliance test at these 

facilities. Various State and Local 

regulations are incorporating PEMS as 

an emissions monitoring tool. The major 

entities that are potentially affected by 

Performance Specification 16 and the 

amendments to the subparts are 

included in the following tables. 

Performance Specification 16 will 

neither apply to existing PEMS nor 

those covered under Subpart E of 40 

CFR part 75. 

Regulated Entities. Categories and 

entities potentially affected include the 

following: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES