Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8923 

impact would also apply to emissions 

from any source, including changes at 

both major and minor sources. As it 

applies to Minor NSR (which includes 

the Texas PBR Program), any emissions 

of PM10 and PM2.5 that are equal to or 

less than 15 and 10 tpy, respectively, are 

anticipated to have an air quality impact 

that is less than 4 percent of the 

NAAQS. 

(4) Accordingly, we would expect that 

the emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 below 

maximum emission levels established in 

the Texas PBR Program will only result 

in small impacts on the ambient air 

quality (less than 4 percent of the 

NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5) and would 

not cause or contribute to violations of 

the NAAQS. 

In sum, the PM2.5 thresholds adopted 

for the PBR program are both more 

stringent than the existing SIP’s 

thresholds, and are equivalent to the 

federal SERs, which are rates of 

emissions EPA found to be less than 

significant. EPA therefore finds 

adoption of these thresholds for PM2.5 in 

the Minor NSR PBR program to 

analogously be less than significant, and 

not violate the federal Minor NSR 

requirements. Furthermore, there is no 

data demonstrating that emissions 

below these thresholds will not meet the 

federal Minor NSR requirements. 

Additionally, there are currently no 

areas in the state of Texas designated 

nonattainment for either the 1997 or 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore 

proposes to find that, as discussed 

above, the submitted PBR thresholds for 

PM10 and PM2.5 will not interfere with 

attainment and maintenance of a 

NAAQS for these pollutants, will not 

violate applicable requirements of the 

control strategy, will not interfere with 

reasonable further progress, and will not 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the Act. Accordingly, the 

submitted PBR thresholds for PM10 and 

PM2.5 meet the requirements of the Act 

at 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 110(l) and 

also meet the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.160(a). Therefore, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Texas Minor NSR SIP for 

PBRs, as revised, meets the permitting 

requirements for the 1997 and 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA proposes to approve the 

revisions to the Texas SIP at 30 TAC 

Sections 101.1 and 106.4 submitted on 

May 19, 2011 for the implementation of 

the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that the May 19, 2011 revisions to 30 

TAC Sections 101.1 and 106.4 are 

approvable because they are adopted 

and submitted in accordance with the 

CAA and EPA regulations regarding 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Therefore, under section 110 and part C 

of the Act and for the reasons stated 

above, EPA proposes to approve the 

following revisions to the Texas SIP: 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘de minimis impact’’ at 30 

TAC Section 101.1(25), 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘particulate matter’’ at 30 

TAC Section 101.1(75), 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘particulate matter 

emissions’’ at 30 TAC Section 101.1(76), 

• Substantive revisions to the 

definition of ‘‘PM2.5 emissions’’ at 30 

TAC Section 101.1(78), 

• Substantive revisions to the 

requirements for permits by rule at 30 

TAC Sections 106.4(a)(1) and, (a)(4), and 

• Non-substantive revisions to the 

requirements for permits by rule at 30 

TAC Sections 106.4(a)(2) and (c) to 

correct for formatting and grammar. 

EPA is also proposing to find that the 

Texas PSD NSR SIP meets the PM2.5

PSD requirements contained in the 

federal regulations as of December 9, 

2013, including regulation of NOX and 

SO2 as PM2.5 PSD precursors, regulation 

of condensables, and PM2.5 increments. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Clean Air 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 

proposes to approve 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen Oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2014. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03322 Filed 2–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0794; FRL–9906–66– 

Region–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Kentucky; 

Stage II Requirements for the Hertz 

Corporation Facility at Cincinnati/

Northern Kentucky International 

Airport in Boone County 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8924 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 182(b)(3) of the Act requires that states 

submit SIP revisions for moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas requiring that a system for 

gasoline vapor recovery of emissions from the 

refueling of motor vehicles be implemented in such 

nonattainment areas. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

source-specific State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submitted to EPA by 

the Commonwealth of Kentucky, 

through the Kentucky Division for Air 

Quality (KDAQ) on January 17, 2014, for 

the purpose of exempting a Hertz 

Corporation facility from the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) Stage II vapor control 

requirements. The subject Hertz 

Corporation facility is currently being 

constructed at the Cincinnati/Northern 

Kentucky International Airport in Boone 

County, Kentucky. EPA’s proposed 

approval of this revision to Kentucky’s 

SIP is based on rationale contained in 

the December 12, 2006 EPA policy 

memorandum from Stephen D. Page, 

entitled ‘‘Removal of Stage II Vapor 

Recovery in Situations Where 

Widespread Use of Onboard Refueling 

Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated.’’ This 

action is being proposed pursuant to the 

CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 17, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0794 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–2013–0794, 

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, Chief, 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– 

0794.’’ 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

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 www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the 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. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding this source 

specific SIP revision, contact Ms. Kelly 

Sheckler, Air Quality Modeling and 

Transportation 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. Ms. 

Sheckler’s telephone number is (404) 

562–9222; email address: 

sheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of the Commonwealth’s 

Submittal 

III. Proposed Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

EPA designated and classified three 

Kentucky Counties (Boone, Campbell 

and Kenton) and four Ohio Counties 

(Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and 

Warren) as a part of the Cincinnati/

Northern Kentucky ‘‘moderate’’ 

nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone 

national ambient air quality standards 

(NAAQS). See 56 FR 56694 (November 

6, 1991). The designation was based on 

the Area’s 1-hour ozone design value of 

0.157 parts per million for the three year 

period of 1988–1990. 

Pursuant to the requirements of 

section 182(b)(3) 1 of the CAA, KDAQ 

developed the Kentucky Administrative 

Regulation (KAR) 401 KAR 59:174 

‘‘Stage II controls at gasoline dispensing 

facilities,’’ and submitted the rule to 

EPA for approval as part of Kentucky’s 

ozone SIP. The rule was adopted by 

Kentucky on January 12, 1998, and 

approved by EPA into the SIP on 

December 8, 1998 (63 FR 675896). 

Under this regulation, gasoline 

dispensing facilities with a monthly 

throughput of 25,000 gallons or more 

located in a Kentucky County in which 

the entire County is classified as severe, 

serious, or moderate nonattainment for 

ozone are required to install Stage II 

vapor recovery systems. 

On October 29, 1999, having 

implemented all measures required of 

Kentucky to that date for moderate 

ozone nonattainment areas under the 

CAA, and with three years of data 

(1996–1998) showing compliance with 

the 1-hour ozone standards, KDAQ 

submitted to EPA an ozone maintenance 

plan and request for redesignation of the 

Kentucky portion of Cincinnati/

Northern Kentucky area to attainment 

status. The maintenance plan, as 

required under section 175A of the 

CAA, showed that nitrogen oxides and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 8925 

2EPA subsequently clarified that the Tri-state 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area was classified 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 24-hour NAAQS 

promulgated in 1997. See 74 FR 58688 (November 

13, 2009). 

emissions in the Area would remain 

below the 1990 ‘‘attainment year’s’’ 

levels. In making these projections 

KDAQ factored in the emissions benefit 

(primarily VOC) of the Area’s Stage II 

program, and did not remove this 

program from the Kentucky SIP. The 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan were approved by EPA on June 19, 

2000 (65 FR 37879). 

Since the Kentucky Stage II program 

was already in place and had been 

included in the Commonwealth’s 

October 29, 1999, redesignation request 

and 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for 

the Area, KDAQ elected not to remove 

the program from the SIP at that time. 

On April 6, 1994, EPA promulgated 

regulations requiring the phase-in of 

onboard refueling vapor recovery 

(ORVR) systems on new motor vehicles. 

Under section 202(a)(6) of the CAA, 

moderate ozone nonattainment areas are 

not required to implement Stage II vapor 

recovery programs after promulgation of 

ORVR standards. 

II. Analysis of the Commonwealth’s 

Submittal 

EPA’s primary consideration for 

determining the approvability of 

Kentucky’s request to exempt Stage II 

vapor control requirements for the Hertz 

Corporation facility located at the 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 

International Airport in Boone County is 

whether this requested action complies 

with the requirements of section 110(l) 

of the CAA. Below is EPA’s analysis of 

these considerations. 

a. Federal Requirements for Stage II 

States were required to adopt Stage II 

rules for all areas classified as 

‘‘moderate’’ or worse under section 

182(b)(3) of the CAA. However, section 

202(a)(6) of the CAA states that ‘‘the 

requirements of section 182(b)(3) 

(relating to Stage II gasoline vapor 

recovery) for areas classified under 

section 181 as moderate for ozone shall 

not apply after the promulgation of such 

[ORVR] standards.’’ ORVR regulations 

were promulgated by EPA on April 6, 

1994. See 59 FR 16262, and 40 CFR 

86.001, .098). As a result, the CAA no 

longer requires moderate areas to 

impose Stage II controls under section 

182(b)(3), and such areas may seek SIP 

revisions to remove such requirements 

from their SIP, subject to section 110(l) 

of the Act. EPA’s policy memoranda 

related to ORVR, dated March 9, 1993, 

and June 23, 1993, provided further 

guidance on removing Stage II 

requirements from certain areas. The 

policy memorandum dated March 9, 

1993, states ‘‘[w]hen onboard rules are 

promulgated, a State may withdraw its 

Stage II rules for moderate areas from 

the SIP (or from consideration as a SIP 

revision) consistent with its obligation 

under sections 182(b)(3) and 202(a)(6), 

so long as withdrawal will not interfere 

with any other applicable requirements 

of the Act.’’ Because the Stage II vapor 

controls in Kentucky are implemented 

pursuant to the Commonwealth’s 

approved maintenance plan, the 

Commonwealth’s request for a source 

specific exemption from the Stage II 

vapor control requirements is subject to 

the requirements of section 110(l) of the 

CAA. 

Section 110(l) of the Act provides that 

EPA cannot approve a SIP revision if 

that revision interferes with any 

applicable requirement regarding 

attainment, reasonable further progress 

(RFP) or any requirement established in 

the CAA. EPA can approve a SIP 

revision that removes or modifies 

control measures in the SIP once states 

make a ‘‘noninterference’’ 

demonstration that such a removal or 

modification will not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS, RFP or any 

other CAA requirement. As such, 

Kentucky must make a demonstration of 

noninterference in order to exempt the 

Hertz Corporation facility located at the 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 

International Airport in Boone County 

from the Stage II requirements. 

b. Cincinnati-Hamilton Interstate Area 

Air Quality Status 

With respect to ozone, on April 30, 

2004, EPA designated the Cincinnati/

Northern Kentucky Area as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. See 69 FR 23857. On 

January 29, 2010, the Commonwealth 

submitted to EPA a redesignation 

request and maintenance plan for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA then 

redesignated the Cincinnati/Northern 

Kentucky area to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS on August 5, 

2010 (75 FR 4718). EPA then designated 

portions of Boone, Campbell and 

Kenton Counties in Kentucky as 

moderate nonattainment for the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS as part of the 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 

Nonattainment Area. This designation 

for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS was 

effective July 20, 2012. See 77 FR 30088. 

With respect to PM, on July 18, 1997, 

EPA promulgated the first air quality 

standards for PM2.5. EPA promulgated 

an annual PM2.5 standard at a level of 

15 micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3), 

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. In the same 

rulemaking, EPA promulgated a 24-hour 

standard of 65 mg/m3, based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

PM2.5 concentrations. On January 5, 

2005, at 70 FR 944, and supplemented 

on April 14, 2005, at 70 FR 19844, EPA 

designated Boone, Campbell, and 

Kenton Counties in Kentucky as part of 

the tri-state Cincinnati-Hamilton 

Nonattainment Area for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS.2

On January 27, 2011, KDAQ 

submitted a request to redesignate the 

Kentucky portion of the tri-state 

Cincinnati-Hamilton Area PM2.5

Nonattainment Area to attainment for 

the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS based 

on 2007–2009 data. On December 15, 

2011, EPA published the final 

rulemaking redesignating the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. See 76 FR 77904. 

In 2006, EPA strengthened the 

primary and secondary 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS from 65 mg/m3 to 35 mg/m3, and 

retained the current primary and 

secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15 

mg/m3. See 71 FR 61144, October 17, 

2006. The revision of the 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in 2006, triggered the 

designation process for the NAAQS. The 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Area was 

designated attainment for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688, 

November 13, 2009. 

c. Non-Interference Demonstration for 

Exemption of Stage II Requirements 

EPA is making the preliminary 

determination that Kentucky’s January 

17, 2014, source-specific revision to the 

Kentucky SIP is approvable based on 

the CAA and the December 12, 2006, 

EPA memorandum from Stephen D. 

Page entitled, ‘‘Removal of Stage II 

Vapor Recovery in Situations Where 

Widespread use of On-board Refueling 

Vapor Recovery is Demonstrated,’’ 

which provides guidance to states 

concerning the removal of Stage II 

gasoline vapor recovery systems where 

states demonstrate to EPA that 

widespread use of ORVR has occurred 

in specific portions of the motor vehicle 

fleet. 

As previously discussed, states were 

required to adopt Stage II rules for such 

areas under section 182(b)(3) of the 

CAA. However, section 202(a)(6) of the 

CAA provides that the requirements of 

section 182(b)(3) (relating to Stage II 

gasoline vapor recovery) for areas 

classified as moderate for ozone shall 

not apply after the promulgation of 

ORVR standards. As noted above, the 

Hertz Corporation facility is located in 

a moderate nonattainment area for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8926 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 31 / Friday, February 14, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3On May 16, 2012, EPA made a determination 

that ORVR was in widespread use throughout the 

motor vehicle fleet for purposes of controlling 

motor vehicle refueling emissions. See 77 FR 28772. 

EPA estimated that approximately 70 percent of all 

vehicles would be equipped with on-board systems 

to capture these vapors by the end of 2012, 

rendering the use of Stage II vapor recovery systems 

redundant. 

purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

Nevertheless, pursuant to the December 

12, 2006 Memorandum, EPA is 

proposing to conclude that an analysis 

as described in the guidance is relevant 

to satisfy the section 110(l) 

demonstration necessary to exempt the 

Hertz Corporation facility from the Stage 

II vapor control requirements. 

EPA believes the widespread use of 

ORVR has been sufficiently 

demonstrated with respect to the rental 

car fleet that will be utilized by the 

Hertz Corporation facility at issue.3

EPA’s December 12, 2006, 

memorandum states that if 95 percent of 

the vehicles in the fleet have ORVR, 

then widespread use will likely have 

been demonstrated for that fleet. The 

memorandum addresses the following 

specific fleets: 

• Initial fueling of new vehicles at 

automobile assembly plants; 

• Refueling of rental cars at rental car 

facilities; and 

• Refueling of flexible fuel vehicles at 

E85 dispensing pumps. 

Most large rental companies rent 

current model vehicles, that are 

equipped with ORVR and vehicle 

models are updated to current year 

models every year or two. The 

Commonwealth of Kentucky has 

confirmed that 100 percent of the fleet 

will be equipped with 2006 model year 

(first model year vehicles required to be 

equipped with ORVR) and newer 

vehicles at the Hertz Corporation facility 

at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 

International Airport in Boone County. 

EPA has preliminarily determined 

that Kentucky has adequately 

demonstrated that ORVR is in 

widespread use and that the Stage II 

requirements of the Kentucky SIP have 

been sufficiently supplanted by the 

ORVR such that exemption of the Hertz 

Corporation facility from the Stage II 

requirements would not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

aforementioned source-specific SIP 

revision request from Kentucky. VOC 

emissions from vehicles at the Hertz 

Corporation facility are controlled by 

ORVR, therefore, EPA has preliminarily 

concluded that removal of Stage II 

requirements at this facility would not 

result in an increase of VOC emissions, 

and thus would not contribute to ozone 

formation. The Commonwealth is 

seeking to exempt this facility from the 

Stage II requirements and EPA has 

preliminarily determined that Kentucky 

has fully satisfied the requirements of 

section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, 

EPA is proposing to approve this 

source-specific SIP revision as being 

consistent with section 110 of the CAA. 

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 state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by 

Commonwealth law. For that reason, 

these proposed actions: 

• Are 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); 

• Do not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Are certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Do not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–4); 

• Do not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Are not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Are not a significant regulatory 

action subject to Executive Order 13211 

(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Are not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Do not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed 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 Commonwealth, and it 

will not impose substantial direct costs 

on tribal governments or preempt tribal 

law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Greenhouse gas, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 3, 2014. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–03328 Filed 2–13–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 261 and 262 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2012–0426; FRL–9906–44– 

OSWER] 

RIN 2050–AG72 

Hazardous Waste Management and the 

Retail Sector: Providing and Seeking 

Information on Practices To Enhance 

Effectiveness to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act 

Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This Notice of Data 

Availability (NODA) announces and 

invites comment on information 

assembled by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), 

and solicits additional information 

regarding the hazardous waste 

management practices of establishments 

in the retail sector (e.g., stores). The 

NODA also invites comment on specific 

issues and suggested questions that the 

retail industry has raised about 

challenges they face in complying with 

the Resource Conservation and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS