9706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

another section. In the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP submittal as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this action, no further 

activity is contemplated. If EPA receives 

adverse comments, the direct final rule 

will be withdrawn and all public 

comments received will be addressed in 

a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by March 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2011–0011 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: fernandez.cristina@ 

epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0011, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

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

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2011– 

0011. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, concerning 

the definition of ‘‘fuel-burning 

equipment,’’ that is located in the ‘‘Rules 

and Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register publication. Please note that if 

EPA receives adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

Dated: February 1, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3723 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2010–1083; FRL–9268–4] 

Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Iowa 

State Implementation Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s 

(EPA) authority in the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), section 110 (k)(5), to call for plan 

revisions, EPA is proposing to find that 

the Iowa State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) is substantially inadequate to 

maintain the 2006 24-hour National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 

for PM2.5 in Muscatine County, Iowa. 

The specific SIP deficiencies needing 

revision are described below. EPA is 

also proposing to finalize a timeline for 

Iowa to revise its SIP to correct these 

deficiencies by a date which is no later 

than 18 months after the effective date 

of the final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2010–1083, by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Tracey Casburn, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver 

your comments to: Tracey Casburn, 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Planning and Development Branch, 901 

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 

66101. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R07–OAR–2010– 

1083. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9707 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Planning and Development Branch, 

901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, 

Kansas 66101. EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The 

interested persons wanting to examine 

these documents should make an 

appointment with the office at least 24 

hours in advance. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tracey Casburn at (913) 551–7016 or by 

e-mail at casburn.tracey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This section provides additional 

information by addressing the following 

questions: 

I. What is the basis for the proposed finding? 

II. How can Iowa correct the inadequacy and 

when must the correction be submitted? 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

V. Statutory Authority 

I. What is the basis for the proposed 

finding? 

EPA promulgated the 2006 24-hour 

NAAQS for PM2.5 on October 17, 2006 

(71 FR 61144) based on significant 

evidence and numerous health studies 

demonstrating that serious health effects 

are associated with exposures to fine 

particulate matter. The 2006 standard 

for 24-hour PM2.5 was set at a level of 

35 micrograms (μg) of particulate matter 

less than 2.5 micrometers (μm) in 

diameter, per cubic meter of air. The 

standard is met when the 3-year average 

of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations is equal to or less than 

35μg/m3. The computation of this 3-year 

average of the 98th percentiles of 24- 

hour concentrations is commonly 

referred to as the design value (dv)and 

is based on the most recent 3 years of 

quality assured data. 

Section 110 (a) (2) (B) requires each 

state to establish and operate 

appropriate devices, methods, systems 

and procedures necessary to monitor, 

compile and analyze data on ambient air 

quality. Pursuant to this authority, the 

state maintains a network of air quality 

monitors for PM2.5 in accordance with 

40 CFR Part 58 which meets applicable 

requirements. Monitors called State or 

Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) 

make up the ambient air quality 

monitoring sites whose data are 

primarily used for determining 

compliance with the NAAQS. 

In accordance with section 107(d) 

(1)(B) of the CAA, no later than 2 years 

after promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS, the Administrator must 

designate all areas, or portions thereof, 

within each state as nonattainment, 

attainment or unclassifiable. This 

process is commonly referred to as the 

‘‘designations process’’. 

With respect to all pollutants, 

including PM2.5, if monitoring data 

demonstrates that an area does not 

comply with the NAAQS, or contributes 

to a violation in a nearby area, that area 

is designated as nonattainment. If 

monitoring data demonstrates that an 

area complies with the NAAQS, and the 

area does not contribute to air quality 

problems in nearby areas that do not 

comply with the NAAQS, the area is 

designated attainment. If there is not 

enough information to determine if an 

area is compliant with the NAAQS it is 

designated as unclassifiable. On 

November 13, 2009, EPA promulgated 

its final designations for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards (74 FR 58688). 

These designations were determined 

based upon air quality monitoring data 

for calendar years 2006–2008 (which 

were the most recent three years of data 

prior to the initial designations). The 

entire State of Iowa was designated as 

unclassifiable/attainment (74 FR 58729) 

at that time based on that set of data. 

On May 20, 2010, the state submitted 

certified SLAMS monitoring data, for 

calendar year 2009, in accordance with 

40 CFR Part 58. When determining the 

design value (dv) for the current 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard based upon air quality 

monitoring data for calendar years 

2007–2009, EPA concluded that a 

monitor in the Muscatine area recorded 

data violating the standard. The monitor 

(site ID# 191390015) is located in the 

City of Muscatine, Muscatine County, 

IA, and is the only PM2.5 State or Local 

Air Monitoring (SLAM) station in the 

county. The SLAM stations make up the 

ambient air quality monitoring sites that 

are primarily needed for NAAQS 

comparisons. Site ID# 191390015 is 

often referred to as the ‘‘Garfield School’’ 

monitor and will be referred to as such 

in this proposed rulemaking. The 2007– 

2009 dv for the Garfield School monitor 

is 38 μg/m3. Historically, the Garfield 

School monitoring location has 

recorded fluctuating PM2.5 values very 

near or above the NAAQs. Historical 

values are shown in Table 1. 

Preliminary data for 2010 indicate that 

the Muscatine area continues to violate 

the 2006 24-hour standard based on 

2008–2010 monitoring data. 

The area was not designated 

nonattainment at the time of EPA’s 

initial designations rulemaking for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard in 2009, 

because, at that time, available certified 

monitoring data demonstrated that the 

dv was compliant with the standard. 

TABLE 1—HISTORICAL DESIGN VALUES

AT THE GARFIELD SCHOOL MONITOR

Monitoring years Design 

value 

2001–2003 .................................... 35 

2002–2004 .................................... 35 

2003–2005 .................................... 38 

2004–2006 .................................... 34 

2005–2007 .................................... 36 

2006–2008 .................................... 35 

2007–2009 .................................... 38 

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA 

provides, in relevant part, that 

‘‘[w]henever the Administrator finds 

that the applicable implementation plan 

for an area is substantially inadequate to 

attain or maintain the relevant national 

ambient air quality standard,* * *the 

Administrator shall require that state to 

revise the plan as necessary to correct 

such inadequacies.’’ 

Because monitor data in the 

Muscatine area show violations of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, based 

upon 2007–2009 data, and have shown 

violations of the standard in the past 

(based upon 2005–2007 data), EPA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

9708 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

believes the SIP is substantially 

inadequate to maintain the 2006 24- 

hour NAAQS for PM2.5 in this area. 

Therefore, EPA proposes to require 

revisions to the SIP as described further 

below. 

II. How can Iowa correct the 

inadequacy and when must the 

correction be submitted? 

EPA believes that the state must 

submit several specific plan elements to 

EPA in order to correct the inadequacy 

of the SIP indentified above. These 

specific elements are: (1) A revised 

emissions inventory for all sources 

(including area sources, mobile sources 

and other significant sources) that could 

be expected to contribute to the 

violating monitor because of their size, 

proximity, or other relevant factors 

consistent with 40 CFR 51.114(a); (2) a 

modeling demonstration consistent with 

Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51 showing 

what reductions will be needed to attain 

and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the 

area; (3) adopted measures to achieve 

reductions determined necessary to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS, with 

enforceable schedules for implementing 

the measures as expeditiously as 

practicable; and (4) contingency 

measures as described below. 

The Muscatine area is currently 

designated as attainment of the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 standards, however, EPA is 

proposing to find the SIP substantially 

inadequate to maintain the 2006 24- 

hour NAAQS for PM2.5, due to the 

monitor in the Muscatine area (Garfield 

School) recording data violating the 

standard (considering 2007–2009 

monitoring data). In this instance, the 

CAA requirements relating to 

nonattainment areas are not expressly 

applicable. Therefore, consistent with 

the general SIP requirements in section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

require a SIP revision which includes 

adopted measures to achieve reductions 

determined necessary to attain and 

maintain the NAAQS, as well as 

contingency measures, as described 

below. 

EPA is proposing that all adopted 

measures to achieve reductions, 

determined through the modeling 

demonstration to be necessary to attain 

and maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard, should be implemented no 

later than two years after the issuance of 

the final SIP Call. EPA believes that this 

schedule is reasonable, because the 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

has already performed a substantial 

portion of its analysis of the nature of 

the PM2.5 problem in the area and the 

types of controls which might be 

necessary to address the problem. 

EPA believes that it is reasonable to 

expect that the design value during the 

calendar year after the necessary 

controls are implemented should be at 

or below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard. 

EPA proposes that the contingency 

measures would be triggered if the 

design value is above the standard in 

the calendar year after the 

implementation of controls necessary 

for attainment, or in any subsequent 

year. EPA is proposing that the SIP 

revision contain an enforceable 

commitment to adopt and implement 

sufficient contingency measures, once 

triggered, in an expeditious and timely 

fashion that is comparable and 

analogous to requirements for 

contingency measures in CAA Section 

175A(d). To do so, the SIP revision 

should clearly identify measures which 

could be timely adopted and 

implemented, a schedule and procedure 

for adoption and implementation, and a 

specific time limit for action by the 

state. The schedule for adoption and 

implementation should be as 

expeditious as practicable, but no longer 

than 24 months after being triggered. 

EPA also seeks comments on whether 

any additional contingency measure 

triggers would be appropriate, or 

whether contingency measures should 

be adopted in advance and available for 

prompt implementation once triggered. 

Section 110(k)(5) of the CAA provides 

that after EPA makes a finding that a 

plan is substantially inadequate, it may 

establish a reasonable deadline for the 

state to submit SIP revisions correcting 

the deficiencies, but the date cannot be 

later than 18 months after the state is 

notified of the finding. Consistent with 

this provision, EPA proposes to require 

the submittal within 18 months 

following any final finding of 

substantial inadequacy. EPA proposes 

that the 18-month period would begin 

on the effective date of the final 

rulemaking. EPA seeks comments on the 

proposed deadline and on whether an 

alternate deadline should be 

established. 

EPA is proposing to require the state 

to establish a specific date in its SIP 

revision by which the Muscatine area 

will attain the standard. The date must 

be as expeditious as practicable based 

upon implementation of Federal, state 

and local measures. As discussed 

previously, we expect that the date will 

be no later than the beginning of the 

calendar year after the implementation 

of controls necessary for attainment 

(two years after the finding of 

substantial inadequacy and SIP Call). 

EPA will establish a specific date for 

attainment at the same time it takes final 

action on the state’s SIP revision. 

Notwithstanding the date for 

attainment, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard can only be achieved when the 

average of three consecutive years of 

data shows those PM2.5 concentrations 

are at or below the levels of the 2006 24- 

hour standard. 

III. What action is EPA proposing? 

EPA proposes the following actions 

relating to the Iowa SIP for PM2.5 for 

Muscatine County. EPA proposes to: 

1. Find that the SIP is substantially 

inadequate to maintain the NAAQS for 

24-hour PM2.5 in the area; 

2. Require that Iowa revise and submit 

to EPA a SIP to meet all of the 

applicable requirements of section 110 

of the Act with respect to PM2.5 in the 

area, including an emissions inventory, 

modeled attainment demonstration, 

adopted control measures and 

contingency measures as described in 

this proposal; 

3. Require the state to submit 

revisions to the SIP within 18 months of 

the effective date of the final SIP Call 

determination; 

4. Require that all adopted measures 

to achieve reductions determined 

necessary to attain and maintain the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard be 

implemented no later than two years 

after the issuance of the SIP Call 

determination. 

5. Require that the SIP provide for 

attainment and maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the Muscatine 

County, IA area as expeditiously as 

practicable, which EPA expects to be no 

later than the beginning of the calendar 

year after the implementation of 

controls necessary for attainment (two 

years after the finding of substantial 

inadequacy and SIP Call). 

We are soliciting comments on these 

proposed actions. Final rulemaking will 

occur after consideration of any 

comments. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, a finding of 

substantial inadequacy and subsequent 

obligation for a state to revise its SIP 

arise out of section 110(a) and 110(k)(5). 

The finding and state obligation do not 

directly impose any new regulatory 

requirements. In addition, the state 

obligation is not legally enforceable by 

a court of law. EPA would review its 

intended action on any SIP submittal in 

response to the finding in light of 

applicable statutory and Executive 

Order requirements, in subsequent 

rulemaking acting on such SIP 

submittal. For those reasons, this 

proposed action: 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 22, 2011 / Proposed Rules 9709 

• 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 finding 

of SIP inadequacy would not 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. 

V. Statutory Authority 

The statutory authority for this action 

is provided by sections 110 and 301 of 

the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410 

and 7601). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Iowa, Particulate 

matter, State Implementation Plan. 

Dated: February 10, 2011. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2011–3862 Filed 2–18–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–09–0W–2010–0976–FRL–9268–5] 

RIN–2009–ZA00 

Water Quality Challenges in the San 

Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta Estuary 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPR) to seek comments 

from interested parties on possible EPA 

actions to address water quality 

conditions affecting aquatic resources in 

the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San 

Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay Delta 

Estuary) in California. EPA is asking the 

public to consider broadly whether EPA 

should be taking new or different 

actions under its programs to address 

recent significant declines in multiple 

aquatic species in the Bay Delta Estuary. 

EPA is not limiting its request to actions 

that would require rulemaking. There 

may be a range of changes in EPA’s 

activities in the Bay Delta Estuary that 

would be constructive, including 

enforcement, research, revisions to 

water quality standards, etc. EPA will 

consider all comments before deciding 

what changes, if any, should be 

pursued. After reviewing the comments 

and completing its evaluation, EPA will 

provide the results of its review and any 

proposed next steps to the public. This 

ANPR identifies specific issues on 

which EPA solicits comment, including 

potential site-specific water quality 

standards and site-specific changes to 

pesticide regulation. In addition to the 

specific issues on which EPA solicits 

comments, EPA is interested in 

comments on any other aspects of EPA’s 

programs affecting Bay Delta Estuary 

aquatic resources. This notice contains 

a summary version of the ANPR. 

Information on accessing the 

unabridged version is included in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted by April 25, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OW–2010–0976, may be submitted 

electronically at the Federal Rulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). 

Hard copy comments should be 

addressed to Erin Foresman, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 75 

Hawthorne Street, WTR–3, San 

Francisco, California 94105. See 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for file 

formats and other information about 

filing. 

Filing Instructions: All comments will 

be included in the public docket 

without change and will be made 

available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

Regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

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

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. While 

all documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., confidential 

business information). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with Erin Foresman, 

foresman.erin@epa.gov, (916) 557–5253. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Foresman at U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9, Water 

Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105; 

foresman.erin@epa.gov, (916) 557–5253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Detailed 

information describing the current state 

of Bay Delta Estuary aquatic resources, 

summaries of scientific knowledge 

regarding Bay Delta Estuary water 

quality stressors, and water quality 

regulatory and non-regulatory activities 

in the Bay Delta Estuary is contained in 

the Unabridged ANPR provided on EPA 

Region 9’s Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/ 

sfbay-delta/index.html) and in the 

electronic docket available at http:// 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS