[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29683-29687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12088]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0272; FRL-9816-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky
SIP; Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, and Malfunctions
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve part of a revision to the Kentucky
State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, through the Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), on
March 22, 2011. The proposed revision was submitted by KDAQ on behalf
of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (District),
which has jurisdiction over Jefferson County, Kentucky. The portion of
the revision that EPA is proposing for approval modifies the Regulation
entitled, ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and
Emergencies'' in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. EPA
is proposing approval of this portion of the March 22, 2011, SIP
revision because the Agency has determined that it is in accordance
with the requirements for SIP provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act). EPA will act on the other portions of KDAQ's March 22, 2011,
submittal, which are severable and unrelated, in a separate action.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 20, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0272, by one of the following methods:
1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected].
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0272, 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 normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0272.'' 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.
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
[[Page 29684]]
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: Joel Huey, 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. Mr. Huey may be reached by
phone at (404) 562-9104 or via electronic mail at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What action is EPA proposing?
II. What is the background of the Jefferson County rule on startups,
shutdowns, malfunctions (SSM) and emergencies?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions to the Jefferson
County SSM Rule?
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action and what is the effect of this
proposed action?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP to incorporate revisions to Jefferson
County Regulation 1.07, ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions and Emergencies'' (referred to hereafter as the
``Jefferson County SSM rule'').\1\ The revision modifies all seven
sections of the existing version of Regulation 1.07 currently in the
EPA-approved SIP for Jefferson County. EPA believes that the changes to
the Jefferson County SSM rule are consistent with CAA requirements that
apply to excess emissions during startup, shutdown and malfunction
(SSM) events. In addition, EPA believes that these changes will correct
existing concerns about the prior version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule in the SIP for this Area, as explained below. Please refer to the
docket for this rulemaking for the complete text of the adopted
provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2003, the City of Louisville and Jefferson County
governments merged and the ``Jefferson County Air Pollution Control
District'' was renamed the ``Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control
District.'' However, each of the regulations in the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP still has the subheading ``Air Pollution
Control District of Jefferson County.'' Thus, to be consistent with
the terminology used in the SIP, we refer throughout this notice to
regulations contained in Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP as the ``Jefferson County'' regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. What is the background of the Jefferson County Rule on startups,
shutdowns, malfunctions (SSM) and emergencies?
The regulation of emissions from stationary sources is a part of
the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District's program for
attaining and maintaining compliance with the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) and for meeting other CAA requirements. The
current EPA-approved SIP for the Jefferson County area incorporates a
prior version of the Jefferson County SSM rule that includes certain
provisions applicable to excess emissions from such sources during
startup, shutdown, malfunction, and emergency events. EPA published
approval of the original version of this rule on January 25, 1980. See
45 FR 6092. On February 11, 1999, Kentucky submitted multiple changes
to the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, which EPA approved
on October 23, 2001. See 66 FR 53658. Among other elements, Kentucky's
February 11, 1999, submittal included several changes to the Jefferson
County SSM rule. The submittal added to this rule a definition of
``Emergency'' in Section 1, Definitions, and a new Section 5,
Emergencies, which contains an affirmative defense provision for
emergencies that is very similar to the affirmative defense provision
of the title V operating permit regulations. See 40 CFR 70.7(g).
Additionally, the February 11, 1999, submittal modified Section 2,
Excess Emissions, of the rule such that excess emissions would not be
deemed in violation of otherwise applicable emission limits in the SIP
if, based upon a showing by the owner or operator of the source and an
affirmative determination by the District, certain requirements
regarding startups and shutdowns, malfunctions, and emergencies are
satisfied. Those requirements, as revised by the February 11, 1999,
submittal, are specified in the following sections of the Jefferson
County SSM rule: Section 3, Startup or Shutdown; Section 4,
Malfunctions; Section 5, Emergencies; Section 6, Initial Notification
and Reporting Requirements for Malfunctions and Emergencies; and
Section 7, Extended Malfunctions and Emergencies.
Acknowledging deficiencies in the Jefferson County SSM rule, the
District proactively adopted changes on June 21, 2005. The District
adopted these changes with the intent of correcting inconsistencies
between its rule and the CAA and EPA guidance,\2\ regarding SIP
provisions that apply to the treatment of excess emissions that may
occur during source startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunction
events. These changes were included in the March 22, 2011, SIP revision
provided to EPA by KDAQ. The most salient features of these latest
changes to Jefferson County Regulation 1.07 include: (1) Changing the
name of the regulation from ``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns,
Malfunctions and Emergencies'' to ``Excess Emissions During Startups,
Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions;'' (2) clarifying that excess emissions
from a process or process equipment due to startup, shutdown or upset
condition shall be deemed in violation of the applicable emission
standards; (3) removing the authority of the District to grant
discretionary exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards
during SSM events; (4) augmenting the source excess emission reporting
requirements to assist the District in evaluating whether ambient
standards and goals have been exceeded and whether enforcement actions
are needed to protect public health and welfare; and (5) removing the
provisions that created exemptions for excess emissions during
emergencies based upon factors comparable to an affirmative defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The District's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the June 21,
2005, changes to the SSM rule references the following memoranda as
part of the basis for the revisions to its SSM rule: ``Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions,'' Kathleen M. Bennett, September 28, 1982; ``Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions,'' Kathleen M. Bennett, February 15, 1983; and ``State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' Steven A. Herman, September
20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the revisions to the Jefferson County
SSM Rule?
EPA has evaluated the revised version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule submitted as part of the March 22, 2011, SIP submission from KDAQ
on behalf of the District. Based upon this evaluation, EPA believes
that the District has made several significant changes that make the
Jefferson County SSM rule consistent with CAA requirements and with EPA
guidance on SIP provisions relevant to the treatment of excess
emissions during SSM events.
[[Page 29685]]
First, the District has explicitly provided that excess emissions
from sources due to startup, shutdown, or upset (i.e., malfunction)
events are not exempt from compliance with applicable emission limits.
Revised Section 2.2 of the Jefferson County SSM rule clearly provides
that excess emissions during such events ``shall be deemed in violation
of the applicable emission standard.'' This provision is consistent
with EPA's longstanding interpretation of the CAA to prohibit SIP
provisions that include any exemptions for excess emissions during SSM
events and requiring that such emissions be treated as violations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown,'' sent by Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to the Regional
Administrators, Regions I-X, on Sept. 20, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the District has substantially revised the Jefferson County
SSM rule in order to alter provisions that previously had the effect of
providing an exemption for emissions during SSM events through the
exercise of director's discretion by the District. The prior version of
the rule contained factors that the District could consider in the
decision whether or not to grant such a discretionary exemption.
Revised Section 2.3 removes the authority of the District to grant
discretionary exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards
and in its place provides an ``enforcement discretion'' provision that
provides specific factors for state personnel in their own exercise of
enforcement discretion for violations related to startup, shutdown, and
upset events. These factors are intended to apply only to the District
and do not affect EPA enforcement or citizen enforcement--both of which
are separately authorized by the CAA.\4\ These factors include
consideration of the duration and frequency of the emissions;
operation/maintenance practices; whether there is a recurring pattern;
certain public health impacts associated with the excess emissions,
among other factors. Notably, these factors are also not intended to,
and do not, operate as an affirmative defense.\5\ This revised
provision is consistent with EPA's longstanding interpretation of the
CAA to permit SIP provisions that address the exercise of enforcement
discretion by state personnel, so long as they do not impinge upon the
enforcement discretion of EPA or citizens.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ On May 9, 2013, Jefferson County provided EPA with a letter
clarifying and confirming that the factors included in Regulation
1.07, Section 2.3, are intended to be discretionary factors that
Jefferson County may consider as part of its own enforcement
discretion and that the rule does not intend to or purport to apply
to any other agency or the public. This letter is a part of the
basis for EPA's action upon the SIP submission and part of the
record for the action to be appropriately reflected in the CFR.
\5\ EPA notes that revised Section 3.4 of the Jefferson County
SSM rule provides that either startup or shutdown that is
necessitated by an upset shall be considered part of the upset.
Provision 2.3, which sets forth enforcement discretion factors,
refers to Section 3.6 and 4.4 and thus the Jefferson County SSM rule
treats startups following a malfunction event in the same manner as
it treats all excess emissions for purposes of enforcement
discretion. In the context of an enforcement discretion provision,
as opposed to an affirmative defense provision for malfunctions, the
Jefferson County SSM rule is consistent with the CAA and EPA's
policy and guidance.
\6\ See ``Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions,'' sent by Kathleen M. Bennett,
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, and Radiation, to the
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X on Feb. 15, 1983 (indicating
the CAA would allow appropriately drawn enforcement discretion
provisions in SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, the District has also substantially revised the Jefferson
County SSM rule to remove provisions that previously included specific
treatment for excess emissions during emergencies. The prior version of
the rule included provisions that together appeared to provide an
exemption for excess emissions that occurred during emergencies, if the
source could meet certain factors that were structured as an
affirmative defense. The District has removed the definition of
``emergency'' that previously appeared in Section 1.1 and removed the
provisions applicable to emergencies in Section 5. The prior version of
the Jefferson County SSM rule could have operated to exempt excess
emissions during such events, and to provide a bar not just to monetary
penalties, but also a bar to injunctive relief for the resulting
violations of SIP emission standards. Moreover, the factors for the
affirmative defense were not consistent with EPA's guidance for
affirmative defense provisions for malfunctions.\7\ Removal of these
provisions from the Jefferson County SSM rule is thus consistent with
EPA's longstanding guidance concerning SIP provisions, both with
respect to exemptions for excess emissions and with respect to
affirmative defense provisions that would be consistent with CAA
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' sent
by Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, to the Regional Administrators, Regions I-X,
on Sept. 20, 1999 (indicating that the CAA would allow appropriately
drawn affirmative defense provisions in SIPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the District has revised the provisions of the Jefferson
County SSM rule to update and expand the notification requirements for
sources in the event of excess emissions related to startup, shutdown,
and upset conditions. These provisions relate to the timing and nature
of notification that the source is required to make to the District and
may be germane to the District's exercise of enforcement discretion
under revised Section 2.3. EPA believes that these updated notification
provisions will likely enhance compliance and enforcement efforts
within the Jefferson County area and that they otherwise are consistent
with CAA requirements because they do not purport to affect the
exercise of enforcement discretion by EPA or other parties.
Finally, the District substantially revised the Jefferson County
SSM rule with respect to ``extended'' malfunctions and emergencies.
Section 9 of the prior version of the rule appeared to allow sources to
continue to operate for extended periods of time in the event of a
malfunction or emergency, without legal consequence, so long as the
source obtained prior authorization from the District. Revised Section
5 of the rule now makes unequivocally clear that, even if the District
authorizes continued operation during such an event following a
specified process, the excess emissions that occur during that extended
period of time remain violations of the applicable SIP emission
standards. The revised provision states that the authorization by the
District ``shall neither constitute an affirmative defense for
violations caused by excess emissions nor preempt the rights of the EPA
or any person to take action under federal, state, or local law.'' EPA
believes Revised Section 5 in conjunction with revised Section 2.2 thus
makes clear that any excess emissions during such periods constitute
violations of the applicable SIP emission standards and that the
District, EPA, or others using the citizen suit provision of the CAA
may still pursue appropriate enforcement action against the source. The
revised provision is thus consistent with EPA's longstanding
interpretation of the CAA to prohibit SIP provisions that include
exemptions for excess emissions during SSM events and requiring that
such emissions be treated as violations.
EPA believes that the revisions to the Jefferson County SSM rule
are consistent with the requirements of both section 110(l) and section
193. Under
[[Page 29686]]
section 110(l), EPA is prohibited from approving any SIP revision that
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirements of
the CAA. In this action, EPA believes that the revisions do not
interfere with such requirements and in fact strengthen the existing
SIP by removing or revising various provisions related to excess
emissions during SSM events that included automatic exemptions,
director discretion exemptions, affirmative defense provisions, and
other provisions that were inconsistent with CAA requirements and would
have interfered with effective enforcement of the SIP. Because all of
these changes are improvements to the prior version of the Jefferson
County SSM rule, and because they are themselves consistent with the
requirements of the CAA as interpreted in EPA guidance for SIP
provisions, EPA is proposing to find that the revision is consistent
with the requirements of section 110(l).
Similarly, CAA section 193 prohibits EPA from approving SIP
revisions to certain SIP control requirements in effect prior to
November 15, 1990, unless the modification insures equivalent or
greater emission reductions. The revision at issue in this action does
pertain to control requirements that, at least in part, predate
November 15, 1990, and thus compliance with section 193 is required.
Because all of the revisions are improvements to the prior version of
the Jefferson County SSM rule, and because the revised provisions are
themselves consistent with the requirements of the CAA as interpreted
in EPA guidance for SIP provisions, EPA is proposing that the revision
is also consistent with the requirements of section 193. As a result of
the improved effectiveness of the enforcement program associated with
emissions during SSM, and the explicit determination that such
emissions are violations of applicable emission limits, the revision is
expected to produce equivalent or greater emission reductions and is
thus consistent with CAA section 193.
Based upon the foregoing analysis, EPA is proposing to approve the
changes to the Jefferson County SSM rule contained in the March 22,
2011, SIP submission from KDAQ on behalf of the District. EPA has
determined that the specific changes to the rule are consistent with
CAA requirements for SIP provisions that address excess emissions
during SSM events, and with EPA guidance concerning such provisions.
EPA requests comment on this proposal, and in particular requests
comments on its view that the revisions to the Jefferson County SSM
rule are consistent with CAA requirements for SIP provisions.
EPA notes that in a separate rulemaking action, published on
February 22, 2013, EPA identified several deficiencies associated with
the Jefferson County SSM rule including: (1) the rule did not consider
all excess emissions above SIP emission limits to be ``violations;''
(2) the rule included insufficiently bounded director's discretion
provisions regarding whether an excess emissions event constituted a
violation and thus creating impermissible discretionary exemptions from
SIP emission limits; (3) the rule provided an impermissible exemption
for excess emissions that occur during ``emergencies;'' and (4) the
rule contained affirmative defense provisions that are not consistent
with CAA requirements. See 78 FR 12460, 12507-12508. Today's action
proposing approval of Jefferson County's revised SSM rule is separate
from the February 22, 2013, action. EPA's action in this proposal does
not reopen the public comment period associated with the separate
February 22, 2013, action; nor does today's action purport to revise or
amend that separate proposed action. EPA will be taking a separate
final action on the February 22, 2013, proposed rulemaking. Today's
action only proposes to approve the revised Jefferson County SSM Rule
into the SIP as consistent with the CAA and CAA policy and guidance,
for the reasons explained above.
IV. Why is EPA proposing this action and what is the effect of this
proposed action?
The purpose of today's action is to propose approval of changes to
Regulation 1.07 in the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP.
The District determined that the current SIP-approved rule required
changes in light of EPA policy memoranda regarding excess emissions
from stationary sources, and voluntarily provided a revision to KDAQ
who submitted the revised rule to EPA for approval in 2011. The changes
to Regulation 1.07, which are being proposed for inclusion into the SIP
today, revise the Jefferson County SSM rule to make it consistent with
the CAA.
If finalized, today's action would approve part of the revision to
the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP submitted by KDAQ, on
behalf of the District, on March 22, 2011. Approval of this revision
would change the name of the regulation to ``Excess Emissions During
Startups, Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions;'' clarify that excess
emissions due to startup, shutdown or upset condition shall be deemed
in violation of the applicable emission standards; augment the source
excess emission reporting requirements to improve air quality
management; remove the authority of the District to grant discretionary
exemptions from compliance with SIP emission standards during SSM
events; remove the affirmative defense provision for emergencies; and
explicitly state that the District's decision not to exercise its own
enforcement discretion would not preempt enforcement by EPA or other
parties. Today's action does not make any changes or propose any
findings related to EPA's completely separate rulemaking action
regarding the current SIP-approved version of the Jefferson County SSM
rule proposed on February 22, 2013 (78 FR 12460).
V. Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to approve the portion of Kentucky's March 22,
2011, SIP revision pertaining to Jefferson County Regulation 1.07,
``Emissions During Startups, Shutdowns, Malfunctions and Emergencies.''
This revision renames the regulation ``Excess Emissions During
Startups, Shutdowns, and Upset Conditions'' and makes numerous changes
to the Jefferson County SSM rule to bring it into compliance with the
CAA and EPA guidance regarding SIP provisions for the correct treatment
of excess emissions from sources during SSM events.
VI. 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, 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.);
[[Page 29687]]
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the Commonwealth, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 9, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-12088 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P