[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4800-4804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01340]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0449; A-1-FRL-9773-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan 
revisions submitted by the State of Connecticut. These SIP revisions 
consist of a demonstration that Connecticut meets the requirements of 
reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen and 
volatile organic compounds set forth by the Clean Air Act with respect 
to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing 
approval of three single source orders. This action is being taken in 
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 22, 
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0449 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (617) 918-0047.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0449,'' 
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold, 
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. 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 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0449. 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

[[Page 4801]]

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 
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 Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, 
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
contact 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 legal 
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittals are also available for 
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the 
Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental 
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning 
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional 
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston, 
MA 02109-3912, telephone number (617) 918-1046, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email mcconnell.robert@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is 
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On December 8, 2006, the State of Connecticut submitted a formal 
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision 
consists of information documenting how Connecticut complied with the 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard.\1\ On July 20, 2007, Connecticut submitted 
three single source RACT orders controlling volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions to EPA and requested that the orders be incorporated 
into the Connecticut SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Connecticut submittal was made to address RACT for the 
1997 8-hour ozone standard and does not address the 0.075 parts per 
million 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require 
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher) 
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act 
requires RACT in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR). 
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major 
VOC and nitrogen oxide emissions sources and for all sources covered by 
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA 
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC 
source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control 
Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control 
requirements. States must submit rules or negative declarations for CTG 
source categories, but not for sources in ACT categories. However, RACT 
must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of those 
major sources may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.
    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) 
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard 
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse 
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of 
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard 
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more 
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and 
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing 
respiratory disease such as asthma.
    On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal 
Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in 
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard needed to address (see 
70 FR 71612). This rule, referred to as the ``Phase 2 Implementation 
rule,'' contained, among other things, a description of EPA's 
expectations for states with RACT obligations. The Phase 2 
Implementation rule indicated that states could meet RACT through the 
establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT 
control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT 
controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes, 
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State 
must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG 
sources.

II. Summary of Connecticut's SIP Revisions

    On December 8, 2006, Connecticut submitted a demonstration that its 
regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for RACT 
as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The state held a 
public hearing on the RACT program on October 18, 2006. Connecticut's 
RACT submittal notes that their prior designation as a nonattainment 
area for the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in the adoption of 
stringent controls for major sources of VOC and NOX, 
including RACT level controls. Therefore, as allowed for within EPA's 
Phase 2 Implementation rule, much of Connecticut's submittal consists 
of a review of RACT controls adopted under the 1-hour ozone standard 
and an indication of whether those previously adopted controls still 
represent RACT. Additionally, Connecticut notes that as a member state 
of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) it works with that organization 
to identify and adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional 
VOC and NOX categories beyond those for which EPA has issued 
CTGs or ACT documents.
    The state's submittal identifies the specific control measures that 
have been previously adopted to control emissions from major sources of 
VOC emissions, reaffirms negative declarations for some CTG categories, 
and describes updates made to two existing rules to strengthen them so 
that they will continue to represent VOC RACT. Table 3 of Connecticut's 
submittal contains a summary of the previously-adopted measures for 
each of the CTG categories

[[Page 4802]]

that EPA issued prior to 2006.\2\ The table identifies the specific 
state rule, where relevant, that is in place, the date of state 
adoption, and the date that EPA approved the rule into the Connecticut 
SIP. Connecticut notes that sections 22a-174-20 and 22a-174-32 of the 
Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which are the principal 
regulations that apply to stationary sources of VOC emissions, 
generally cover sources emitting 25 or more tons of VOC per year in the 
state's ``severe'' 1-hour ozone nonattainment area and those emitting 
50 or more tons of VOC per year in the rest of the state. However, for 
some CTG categories such as surface coating sources, Connecticut's 
rules include lower applicability thresholds consistent with the 
relevant CTGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking does not address Connecticut's response to 
the CTGs that EPA issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Connecticut's submittal notes that no sources exist in 
the state for some CTG categories. Specifically, Table 3 of 
Connecticut's submittal makes negative declarations for the following 
CTG sectors:
    1. Automobile coating.
    2. Large petroleum dry cleaners.
    3. Large appliance coating.
    4. Natural gas and gas processing plants.
    5. Flat wood paneling coating.
    6. Control of VOC leaks from petroleum refineries.
    Finally, Connecticut updated two existing VOC rules in order to 
continue their status as representing RACT. Namely, these are rules 
limiting emissions from cutback asphalt paving and solvent cleaning 
(metal degreasing). The original version of the state's cutback asphalt 
rule allowed use of cutback asphalt, with some restrictions, during the 
ozone season and provided exemptions for penetrating prime coat 
products and for long-term storage of asphalt. The state's updated rule 
removed these provisions and was submitted to EPA on January 8, 2009 
and approved by EPA into the Connecticut SIP on August 22, 2012 (77 FR 
50595). Additionally, Connecticut updated its solvent cleaning rule to 
more closely reflect the OTC's 2001 model rule for this activity. The 
update included a limit on the vapor pressure used in cold cleaning 
solvents and operating practices to further reduce VOC emissions. 
Connecticut submitted its updated solvent cleaning rule to EPA on 
February 1, 2008, and EPA approved the revised rule into the 
Connecticut SIP within the August 22, 2012 Federal Register rulemaking 
noted above.
    As required, Connecticut's submittal addresses NOX 
emissions as well as VOC emissions. In particular, the submittal's 
Table 4 lists all major sources of NOX (and VOC) in the 
state, and Connecticut identifies several regulations previously 
approved by EPA which represent RACT for NOX. Connecticut 
notes that all facilities in the state with the potential to emit 50 
tons or more of NOX per year (or 25 tons or more in the 
``severe'' 1-hour ozone area of the state) are subject to Regulations 
of Connecticut State Agencies section 22a-174-22, ``Control of Nitrogen 
Oxide Emissions.'' In addition, section 22a-174-38 regulates 
NOX emissions from Connecticut's six municipal waste 
combustors (MWCs), which constitute roughly thirty percent of the 
state's annual NOX emissions from major NOX 
sources. Connecticut indicates that section 22a-174-38 is as stringent 
as the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements EPA 
promulgated in 2006, and that this rule thus represents RACT for MWCs 
in Connecticut.
    Connecticut's submittal also points out that NOX 
emissions have been reduced due to the implementation of several 
NOX trading programs. Connecticut's SIP includes regulations 
implementing the OTC and Federal NOX Budget Programs and the 
subsequent Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program. All three of these 
programs and their corresponding regulations (Regulations of 
Connecticut State Agencies section 22-174-22a, 22-174-22b, and 22-174-
22c, respectively) were submitted to EPA and approved into the 
Connecticut SIP. Connecticut explains that when its CAIR program, 
section 22-174-22c, became effective, its Federal NOX Budget 
Program contained in section 22-174-22b was repealed.
    In addition to these general, state-wide NOX and VOC 
rules, Connecticut's submittal addresses certain individual sources in 
the state. Table 4 of Connecticut's submittal identifies the major 
NOX and VOC sources in the state that are not covered by an 
ACT or CTG document. The state has issued source-specific orders 
containing control requirements for the facilities listed in Table 4 of 
the state's submittal, all of which have been previously approved into 
the Connecticut SIP. Additionally, on July 20, 2007, Connecticut 
submitted VOC RACT orders for the Curtis Packaging Corporation in 
Newtown, Sumitomo Bakelite North America, Incorporated, located in 
Manchester, and Cyro Industries in Wallingford.
    Connecticut's review of its control program for major sources of 
VOC and NOX thus concludes that, with the adoption of 
revised rules for cutback asphalt and solvent cleaning, all major 
sources in the state are subject to RACT.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    EPA has reviewed Connecticut's determination that it has adopted 
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that 
constitute RACT, and determined that the set of regulations cited by 
the state constitute RACT for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. Additionally, we are proposing to approve the three VOC RACT 
orders submitted by the state on July 20, 2007.
    Connecticut's submittal documents the state's VOC and 
NOX control regulations that have been adopted to ensure 
that RACT level controls are required in the state. These requirements 
include the following Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies: 
section 22a-174-20, Control of Organic Compound Emissions; section 22a-
174-22, Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions; section 22a-174-30, 
Dispensing of Gasoline/Stage I and Stage II Vapor Recovery; section 
22a-174-32, RACT for Organic Compound Emissions; and 22a-174-38, 
Municipal Waste Combustors. Additionally, Connecticut has adopted 
numerous single source RACT orders for major sources of VOC and 
NOX that are not covered by one of EPA's CTGs or ACTs, and 
these orders have been submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP. 
Also, as noted above, Connecticut adopted and EPA has approved into the 
Connecticut SIP updates to the state's existing asphalt paving and 
solvent metal cleaning regulations that strengthened these two VOC 
control regulations.
    Furthermore, Connecticut notes that its participation within 
several NOX budget trading programs also acted to reduce 
NOX emissions in the state. Between 1999 and 2002, 
Connecticut participated in the OTC's NOX Budget Program. 
Connecticut implemented this program by adopting section 22a-174-22a, 
the NOX Budget Program, and submitted this regulation to EPA 
which we incorporated into the Connecticut SIP on September 28, 1999 
(64 FR 52233). In 2003, these NOX budget sources were 
transitioned to the Federal NOX budget program which 
Connecticut implemented by adopting section 22a-174-22b, the Post-2002 
NOX Budget Program. Connecticut submitted this regulation to 
EPA, and we approved it into the Connecticut SIP on December 27, 2000 
(65 FR 81743).
    The state's submittal documents a substantial downward trend in 
NOX and

[[Page 4803]]

VOC emissions from stationary sources between 1990 and 2007, although 
part of that decline is attributable to RACT controls implemented by 
Connecticut in the early and mid 1990s to help it meet the older 1-hour 
ozone standard. Of more relevance is the decline in point source 
emissions that occurred since EPA promulgated the 1997 8-hour ozone 
standard. Data collected by Connecticut from its annual survey of 
industrial point source emitters reveals that between 1999 and 2005, 
VOC emissions from industrial point sources declined by 66%, and 
NOX emissions declined by 38%. This decline in emissions was 
brought about, in part, by the RACT program implemented by Connecticut.
    We have determined that these regulatory elements and the resulting 
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from major sources 
demonstrate that a RACT level of control for both pollutants has been 
implemented in the state. Additionally, EPA has determined that 
Connecticut's two 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas attained the 1997 
ozone standard by their attainment date, based on quality assured air 
monitoring data. This determination was published on August 31, 2010 
(75 FR 53219) for the Greater Connecticut area, and on June 18, 2012 
(77 FR 36163) for the New York City area. The improvements in air 
quality represented by these clean data determinations were brought 
about, in part, by the RACT program implemented by Connecticut.
    EPA does not anticipate any difficulties with enforcing the state's 
standards, as EPA has previously approved the rules Connecticut cites 
as the means by which RACT is implemented. Additionally, Connecticut 
acted to further reduce NOX emissions by adopting section 
22a-174-22c, the Clean Air Interstate NOX Ozone Season 
trading program. Connecticut submitted this program to EPA, and we 
approved it into the SIP on January 4, 2008 (73 FR 4105). Although the 
CAIR program was subject to a number of court challenges, a recent 
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
issued on August 21, 2012 which vacated the Cross State Air Pollution 
Rule provided that until the CSAPR litigation is resolved, the CAIR 
program remains in effect. (EME Homer City Generation, L.P., v. EPA, 
No. 11-1302. (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
    EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX stationary source 
control regulations which Connecticut contends meets RACT for the 1997 
8-hour standard, and determined that a level of control consistent with 
RACT has been implemented in the state. Therefore, we are proposing to 
approve Connecticut's December 8, 2006 RACT certification.
    Additionally, we are proposing approval of the VOC RACT orders for 
the following three companies described below:

Cyro Industries

    Cyro Industries manufactures extruded polymer pellets that are 
molded into various shapes by the end user at its facility located in 
Wallingford. The facility operates VOC emitting process equipment 
including raw material storage tanks, monomer preparation equipment, 
polymer production extrusion lines, grafted rubber equipment, dye 
preparation and post coloring operations. Additionally, VOC emissions 
occur from fugitive leaks, and from a number of small process and space 
heaters.
    Cyro Industries took ownership of the facility from American 
Cyanamid in 2005. Pursuant to Connecticut's section 22a-174-32(e)(6), 
Cyro submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to the Connecticut 
Department of Environmental Protection. The facility essentially 
requested that the VOC RACT requirements that had formerly been imposed 
on American Cyanamid pursuant to Connecticut RACT order 8012 be 
maintained as RACT. Connecticut reviewed this request and essentially 
agreed, issuing RACT order 8268 to Cyro Industries on February 28, 
2007. The new order updated the equipment and process lines described 
in the prior order and ensures that VOC emissions are reduced by no 
less than 85%.

Sumitomo Bakelite North America

    Sumitomo Bakelite, formerly named Vyncolit North American, 
Incorporated, produces fiberglass impregnated and resinous pellets at 
its facility in Manchester. There are seven separate process lines in 
use at the facility. The company submitted a request that their 
emissions be controlled via an alternative RACT compliance plan under 
section 22a-174-32(e)(6). Connecticut reviewed the facility's request 
and, on October 11, 2006, issued order 8245 to the facility. The order 
requires, among other things, that the facility comply with the 
following requirements: actual emissions may not exceed 45 tons of VOC 
for any consecutive 12 month period or exceed 8,889 pounds per month 
for any given month; process lines identified as EXT2 and EXT3 are not 
allowed to use VOC containing components except during the mixing 
process, and the vapor pressure of all materials used during the 
blending process shall be less than or equal to 1.0 millimeters of 
mercury measured at 18.5 degrees Centigrade; only non-VOC materials can 
be used in the manufacture of ``DAP'' products or in process line EXT1; 
and, emissions of VOC from new, non-extruded products shall not exceed 
0.006 pounds of VOC per pound of non-extruded product produced. These 
requirements will yield a VOC reduction of approximately 76% at the 
facility.

Curtis Packaging Corporation

    The Curtis Packaging Corporation manufactures custom designed 
paperboard and cardboard packaging at its facility in Newtown using 
three sheet-fed offset lithographic printing presses. The facility is 
subject to EPA's 2006 CTG for lithographic printing. In an effort to 
comply with the requirements of that CTG, the company reformulated many 
of its fountain solutions with non-alcohol additives and ultra violet 
(UV) light cured inks seeking to meet the CTG's requirements. However, 
the facility was not able to meet the CTG's overall emission reduction 
requirement, and so submitted an alternative RACT compliance plan to 
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
    Connecticut reviewed the company's request, and on May 1, 2007, 
issued order 8270 to the facility. The order requires, among other 
things, the following: fountain solutions must contain no alcohol 
additives, and must have a VOC content of 5% or less by weight, as 
applied; UV cured inks must be used instead of oil based inks; and, 
cleaning solutions are limited to 30% VOC by weight.
    EPA has reviewed these single source VOC RACT orders, and agrees 
with Connecticut that they represent a RACT level of control for each 
facility. Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of these orders.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing approval of Connecticut's December 8, 2006 SIP 
submittal that demonstrates that the state has adopted air pollution 
control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with 
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval 
of orders submitted by Connecticut on July 20, 2007 for Cyro 
Industries, Sumitomo Bakelite North America, and Curtis Packaging, as 
representing RACT for these three facilities.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this 
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered 
before taking final

[[Page 4804]]

action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking 
procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England 
Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal 
Register.

V. 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 State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the 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, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 11, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-01340 Filed 1-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P