[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 105 (Friday, May 31, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32613-32617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12970]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0298, FRL-9818-7]


Disapproval of State Implementation Plan; Infrastructure 
Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard; Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

[[Page 32614]]


ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a specific portion of the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) certifications submitted by the State of 
Montana to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 18, 1997. The 
CAA requires that each state, after a new or revised NAAQS is 
promulgated, review its SIP to ensure that it meets certain 
infrastructure requirements detailed in the CAA. The State of Montana 
submitted two certifications, dated November 28, 2007 and December 22, 
2009, that its SIP met these requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA 
is proposing to disapprove a portion of the submitted revisions because 
the SIP does not meet the requirements in the CAA for state boards that 
approve permits or enforcement orders.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 1, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0298, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected]
     Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted 
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal 
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2010-0298. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I, General 
Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy 
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding 
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6142, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air 
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.
    (iv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (v) The words State or Montana mean the State of Montana, unless 
the context indicates otherwise.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Montana's Submittal and EPA Analysis
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-
hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the 
previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was 
changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856).
    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 
(2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation 
of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic 
requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and 
modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These 
requirements are set out in several ``infrastructure elements,'' listed 
in section 110(a)(2).
    The State of Montana submitted two certifications of their 
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, one dated November 28, 
2007, which was determined to be complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 
16205), and another dated December 22, 2009. On May 19, 2011 (76 FR 
28934), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the 
certifications. Among other things, the NPR proposed approval of the 
state's submission for purposes of meeting the CAA infrastructure 
requirements under section 110(a)(2)(E), Adequate resources and 
authority, for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. During the comment period provided 
for the proposed rule, EPA received an adverse comment on EPA's 
proposed approval with respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The 
commenter stated that the Montana SIP did not contain adequate 
provisions to satisfy the requirements of CAA section 128

[[Page 32615]]

and was therefore inconsistent with section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).
    On July 22, 2011 (76 FR 43918), EPA published a final rule 
completing our action on all infrastructure elements except 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA took no action on section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 
committed to do so at a later date. In this notice, we are proposing a 
new action on Montana's certifications for the 1997 ozone NAAQS with 
respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii).

II. Montana's Submittal and EPA Analysis

    Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires that ``the State 
comply with the requirements respecting State boards under section 
128.''
    Montana's response to this requirement: The Montana Board of 
Environmental Review (BER) oversees the Montana DEQ, including actions 
taken by the State air program. The composition and requirements of the 
BER are detailed in 2-15-3502, Montana Code Annotated (MCA); 2-15-121, 
MCA; and 2-15-124, MCA. Laws related to conflict of interest in Montana 
state government are found in 2-2-201, MCA; and 2-2-202, MCA.
    EPA analysis: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) of the CAA requires that the 
State comply with section 128 of the CAA. Section 128 was added in the 
1977 amendments to the CAA as the result of a conference agreement. 
Titled ``State boards,'' it provides in relevant part:
    (a) Not later than the date one year after August 7, 1977, each 
applicable implementation plan shall contain requirements that--
    (1) Any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders 
under [this Act] shall have at least a majority of members who 
represent the public interest and do not derive any significant portion 
of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders 
under [this Act], and,
    (2) Any potential conflicts of interest by members of such board or 
body or the head of an executive agency with similar powers be 
adequately disclosed.
    In 1978, EPA issued a guidance memorandum recommending ways states 
could meet the requirements of section 128, including suggested 
interpretations of certain key terms in section 128.\1\ In this notice, 
we additionally discuss various relevant aspects of section 128. We 
first note that, in the conference report on the 1977 amendments to the 
CAA, the conference committee stated, ``It is the responsibility of 
each state to determine the specific requirements to meet the general 
requirements of [section 128].'' \2\ We find that this legislative 
history indicates that Congress intended states to have some latitude 
in the specifics of implementing section 128, so long as the 
implementation is consistent with the plain text of the section. We 
also note that Congress explicitly provided in section 128 that states 
could elect to adopt more stringent requirements, as long as the 
minimum requirements of section 128 are met. As a result, we note three 
considerations for implementing section 128.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from David O. Bickart, Deputy General Counsel, to 
Regional Air Directors, Guidance to States for Meeting Conflict of 
Interest Requirements of Section 128 (Mar. 2, 1978).
    \2\ H.R. Rep. 95-564 (1977), reprinted in 3 Legislative History 
of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 526-27 (1978).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, section 128 must be implemented through provisions that EPA 
approves into the SIP and are made federally enforceable. Section 128 
explicitly mandates that each SIP ``shall contain requirements'' that 
satisfy subsections 128(a)(1) and 128(a)(2). A mere narrative 
description of state statutes or rules, or of a state's current or past 
practice in constituting a board or body and in disclosing potential 
conflicts of interest, is not a requirement contained in the SIP and 
does not satisfy the plain text of section 128.
    Second, subsection 128(a)(1) applies only to states that have a 
board or body that is composed of multiple individuals and that, among 
its duties, approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. It 
does not apply in states that have no such multi-member board or body 
that performs these functions, and where instead a single head of an 
agency or other similar official approves permits or enforcement orders 
under the CAA. This flows from the text of section 128, for two 
reasons. First, as subsection 128(a)(1) refers to a majority of members 
in the plural, we think it reasonable to read subsection 128(a)(1) as 
not creating any requirements for an individual with sole authority for 
approving permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Second, 
subsection 128(a)(2) explicitly applies to the head of an executive 
agency with ``similar powers'' to a board or body that approves permits 
or enforcement orders under the CAA, while subsection 128(a)(1) omits 
any reference to heads of executive agencies. We infer that subsection 
128(a)(1) should not apply to heads of executive agencies who approve 
permits or enforcement orders.
    Third, subsection 128(a)(2) applies to all states, regardless of 
whether the state has a multi-member board or body that approves 
permits or enforcement orders under the CAA. Although the title of 
section 128 is ``State boards,'' the language of subsection 128(a)(2) 
explicitly applies where the head of an executive agency, rather than a 
board or body, approves permits or enforcement orders. In instances 
where the head of an executive agency delegates his or her power to 
approve permits or enforcement orders, or where statutory authority to 
approve permits or enforcement orders is nominally vested in another 
state official, the requirement to adequately disclose potential 
conflicts of interest still applies. In other words, EPA thinks that 
SIPs for all states, regardless of whether a state board or body 
approves permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, must contain 
adequate provisions for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest 
in order to meet the requirements of subsection 128(a)(2).
    The Montana SIP does not contain provisions that meet the 
requirements of CAA section 128. As discussed above, section 128 must 
be implemented through SIP-approved, federally enforceable provisions. 
In particular, subsection 128(a)(2) applies in all states; in other 
words, all SIPs must contain provisions for the adequate disclosure of 
potential conflicts of interest. The Montana SIP does not currently 
contain any such provisions and is deficient with respect to the 
requirements of subsection 128(a)(2).
    Furthermore, as cited by Montana in its certification, section 2-
15-3502 of the MCA creates a Board of Environmental Review (``Board''). 
The Board consists of seven members appointed by the Governor and 
meeting certain statutory criteria. Under section 75-2-211(10) of the 
MCA, a person who is directly and adversely affected by the Montana 
Department of Environmental Quality's (MDEQ's) approval or denial of a 
permit to construct an air pollution source may (with certain 
exceptions) request a hearing before the Board. Similarly, under 
section 75-2-218(5) of the MCA, a person who participated in the 
comment period on MDEQ's issuance, renewal, amendment or modification 
of a title V operating permit may request a hearing before the Board. 
Finally, under section 75-2-401(1), a person who receives an 
enforcement order from MDEQ under Chapter 2 of Title 75, Air Quality, 
may request a hearing before the Board.
    Based on these State statutory provisions and our discussion above 
of the text of section 128(a)(1), we propose to conclude that the Board 
falls within the terms of subsection 128(a)(1); in

[[Page 32616]]

other words, the Board is a multi-member body that has authority to 
approve permits and enforcement orders under the Act. The term 
``permits under the Act'' includes Prevention of Significant 
Deterioration, nonattainment New Source Review, and minor New Source 
Review permits. These are all permits required to construct a new or 
modified stationary source, and, under MCA section 75-2-211(1), are 
potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. Permits under the 
Act also include title V operating permits, which, under MCA section 
75-2-218(5), are potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. 
Similarly, enforcement orders under the Act are, under MCA section 75-
2-401(1), potentially subject to a hearing before the Board. In short, 
the Board has authority to hear appeals of permits and enforcement 
orders under the Act.
    The Board's authority to hear appeals is ``authority to approve'' 
within the meaning of section 128, for two reasons. First, the Board's 
authority falls within the plain meaning of the word ``approve.'' To 
approve means, among other things, ``to give formal sanction to.'' This 
is precisely what, for example, an order from the Board upholding a 
permit does: it formally sanctions the permit. Second, the contrary 
interpretation, that ``authority to approve'' does not include the 
Board's authority to hear appeals, would be inconsistent with the 
structure and purpose of section 128. It would limit the applicability 
of subsection 128(a)(1) to multi-member boards that issue permits in 
the first instance. As the purpose of section 128 is to promote 
disinterested decision-making on permits and enforcement orders, it is 
paramount that section 128 should apply to the entity with authority to 
make the final decision, and not merely to the initial decision maker. 
In addition, due to the language ``with similar powers'' in subsection 
128(a)(2), the contrary interpretation would lead to the illogical 
result that a state director who issues permits and enforcement orders 
that are subject to administrative appeal would fall under the 
disclosure requirement, but a director that was the final decision 
maker on permits and enforcement orders would not.
    As the Board has authority to approve permits and enforcement 
orders under the Act, it is subject to subsection 128(a)(1). However, 
the Montana SIP does not currently contain any provisions to meet the 
requirements of subsection 128(a)(1) and therefore does not meet these 
requirements. As discussed above, the SIP also does not contain any 
provisions to meet the requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). As a 
result, we propose to disapprove the Montana infrastructure SIP for the 
1997 ozone NAAQS with respect to the requirements of section 
110(a)(2)(E)(ii). We do not consider it necessary to identify any 
particular instances in which the Board's actual composition in 
practice has failed to meet the compositional requirements of 
subsection 128(a)(1) or in which Board members in practice have failed 
to meet the disclosure requirements of subsection 128(a)(2). The 
proposed disapproval is based upon the Montana SIP itself, which simply 
fails to contain any provisions meeting the explicit legal requirements 
of these subsections.

III. Proposed Action

    We propose to disapprove the Montana infrastructure SIP for the 
1997 ozone NAAQS for element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). The Montana SIP does not 
contain provisions to meet the requirements of CAA section 128.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or 
disapprove state choices, depending on whether they meet the criteria 
of the Clean Air Act. With this proposed action EPA is merely 
disapproving a state law as not meeting Federal requirements, and is 
not imposing additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Because the proposed disapproval does not raise novel legal or 
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the EO, this proposed action 
is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive 
Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject 
to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 
21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule 
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect 
on all of the small entities subject to the rule.
    EPA's proposal consists of a proposed disapproval of a specific 
portion of the Montana infrastructure certification. The proposed 
disapproval of the SIP, if finalized, merely disapproves the state law 
as not meeting federal requirements and does not impose any additional 
requirements.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly 
or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that 
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of

[[Page 32617]]

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal governments or the private 
sector in any one year. In addition, this proposed rule does not 
contain a significant federal intergovernmental mandate as described by 
section 203 of UMRA nor does it contain any regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the State, on 
the relationship between the national government and the State, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely 
addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation under section 128 
of the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, 
EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and 
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive 
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards 
established by Congress in statutes.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority or low-income populations because it disapproves a 
specific portion of the Montana SIP which does not meet requirements of 
the CAA.
    In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP being disapproved would not apply in Indian country 
located in the state, and it would not impose substantial direct costs 
on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 16, 2013.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-12970 Filed 5-30-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P