2070 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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, 

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 22, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2011–343 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028; FRL–9251–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration; 

Greenhouse Gas Permitting Authority 

and Tailoring Rule Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ). This revision pertains to 

EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) permitting 

provisions as promulgated on June 3, 

2010. This action is being taken under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2010–1028 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: cox.kathleen@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2010–1028, 

Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, Office 

of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 

3AP10, 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–2010– 

1028. 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 e-mail. 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 e-mail 

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. 

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 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 Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Talley, (215) 814–2117, or by 

e-mail at talley.david@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On October 27, 2010, the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a revision to its SIP for the 

addition of a new Chapter 85 of 9VAC5. 

I. Background 

On October 27, 2010, VADEQ 

submitted a draft revision to EPA for 

approval into the Virginia SIP to 

establish appropriate emission 

thresholds for determining which new 

or modified stationary sources become 

subject to Virginia’s Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions. Final approval of Virginia’s 

October 27, 2010, SIP revision will put 

in place the GHG emission thresholds 

for PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule,’’ (the Tailoring Rule) Final Rule, 

75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010), ensuring 

that smaller GHG sources emitting less 

than these thresholds will not be subject 

to permitting requirements when these 

requirements begin applying to GHGs 

on January 2, 2011. Pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA, EPA is proposing to 

approve this revision into the Virginia 

SIP. 

Today’s proposed action on the 

Virginia SIP generally relates to three 

federal rulemaking actions. The first 

rulemaking is EPA’s Tailoring Rule. The 

second rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to 

Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under 

the Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Program to Sources of 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of 

Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,’’ 

Proposed Rule (GHG SIP Call). 75 FR 

53892 (September 2, 2010). The third 

rulemaking is EPA’s ‘‘Action to Ensure 

Authority to Issue Permits Under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan,’’ Proposed Rule, 75 FR 53883 

(September 2, 2010) (GHG FIP), which 

serves as a companion rulemaking to 

EPA’s proposed GHG SIP Call. A 

summary of each of these rulemakings 

is described below. 

In the first rulemaking, the Tailoring 

Rule, EPA established appropriate GHG 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2071 

emission thresholds for determining the 

applicability of PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. In the second 

rulemaking, the GHG SIP Call (which is 

not yet final), EPA proposed to find that 

the EPA-approved PSD programs in 13 

States (not including Virginia) are 

substantially inadequate to meet CAA 

requirements because they do not 

appear to apply PSD requirements to 

GHG-emitting sources. For each of these 

States, EPA proposed to require the 

State (through a ‘‘SIP Call’’) to revise its 

SIP as necessary to correct such 

inadequacies. EPA proposed an 

expedited schedule for these States to 

submit their SIP revision, in light of the 

fact that as of January 2, 2011, certain 

GHG-emitting sources will become 

subject to the PSD requirements and 

may not be able to obtain a PSD permit 

in order to construct or modify. In the 

third rulemaking, the GHG FIP (which 

is not yet final), EPA proposed a FIP to 

apply in any state that is unable to 

submit, by its deadline, a SIP revision 

to ensure that the state has authority to 

issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting 

sources. Because Virginia already has 

authority to regulate GHGs, Virginia is 

only seeking to revise its SIP to put in 

place the GHG emission thresholds for 

PSD applicability set forth in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule, thereby ensuring that 

smaller GHG sources emitting less than 

these thresholds will not be subject to 

permitting requirements when these 

requirements begin applying to GHGs 

on January 2, 2011. 

Below is a brief overview of GHGs 

and GHG-emitting sources, the CAA 

PSD program, minimum SIP elements 

for a PSD program, and EPA’s recent 

actions regarding GHG permitting. 

Following this section, EPA discusses, 

in sections III and IV, the relationship 

between the proposed Virginia SIP 

revision and EPA’s other national 

rulemakings as well as EPA’s analysis of 

Virginia’s SIP revision. 

A. What are GHGs and their sources? 

A detailed explanation of GHGs, 

climate change and the impact on 

health, society, and the environment is 

included in EPA’s technical support 

document for EPA’s GHG endangerment 

finding final rule (Document ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0472–11292 at 

www.regulations.gov). 

The endangerment finding 

rulemaking is discussed later in this 

rulemaking. A summary of the nature 

and sources of GHGs is provided below. 

GHGs trap the Earth’s heat that would 

otherwise escape from the atmosphere 

into space and form the greenhouse 

effect that helps keep the Earth warm 

enough for life. GHGs are naturally 

present in the atmosphere and are also 

emitted by human activities. Human 

activities are intensifying the naturally 

occurring greenhouse effect by 

increasing the amount of GHGs in the 

atmosphere, which is changing the 

climate in a way that endangers human 

health, society, and the natural 

environment. 

Some GHGs, such as carbon dioxide 

(CO2), are emitted to the atmosphere 

through natural processes as well as 

human activities. Other gases, such as 

fluorinated gases, are created and 

emitted solely through human activities. 

The well-mixed GHGs of concern 

directly emitted by human activities 

include CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous 

oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons 

(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hereafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘the six wellmixed GHG,’’ or, simply, GHGs. 

Together these six well-mixed GHGs 

constitute the ‘‘air pollutant’’ upon 

which the GHG thresholds in EPA’s 

Tailoring Rule are based. These six 

gases remain in the atmosphere for 

decades to centuries where they become 

well-mixed globally in the atmosphere. 

When they are emitted more quickly 

than natural processes can remove them 

from the atmosphere, their 

concentrations increase, thus increasing 

the greenhouse effect. 

In the United States, the combustion 

of fossil fuels (e.g., coal, oil, gas) is the 

largest source of CO2 emissions and 

accounts for 80 percent of the total GHG 

emissions by mass. Anthropogenic CO2

emissions released from a variety of 

sources, including through the use of 

fossil fuel combustion and cement 

production from geologically stored 

carbon (e.g., coal, oil, and natural gas) 

that is hundreds of millions of years old, 

as well as anthropogenic CO2 emissions 

from land-use changes such as 

deforestation, perturb the atmospheric 

concentration of CO2, and the 

distribution of carbon within different 

reservoirs readjusts. More than half of 

the energy-related emissions come from 

large stationary sources such as power 

plants, while about a third come from 

transportation. Of the six well-mixed 

GHGs, four (CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs) 

are emitted by motor vehicles. In the 

United States, industrial processes (such 

as the production of cement, steel, and 

aluminum), agriculture, forestry, other 

land use, and waste management are 

also important sources of GHGs. 

Different GHGs have different heattrapping capacities. The concept of 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) was 

developed to compare the heat-trapping 

capacity and atmospheric lifetime of 

one GHG to another. The definition of 

a GWP for a particular GHG is the ratio 

of heat trapped by one unit mass of the 

GHG to that of one unit mass of CO2

over a specified time period. When 

quantities of the different GHGs are 

multiplied by their GWPs, the different 

GHGs can be summed and compared on 

a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) 

basis. For example, CH4 has a GWP of 

21, meaning each ton of CH4 emissions 

would have 21 times as much impact on 

global warming over a 100-year time 

horizon as 1 ton of CO2 emissions. Thus, 

on the basis of heat-trapping capability, 

1 ton of CH4 would equal 21 tons of 

CO2e. The GWPs of the non-CO2 GHG 

range from 21 (for CH4) up to 23,900 (for 

SF6). Aggregating all GHG on a CO2e 

basis at the source level allows a facility 

to evaluate its total GHG emissions 

contribution based on a single metric. 

B. What are the general requirements of 

the PSD program? 

1. Overview of the PSD Program 

The PSD program is a preconstruction 

review and permitting program 

applicable to new major stationary 

sources and major modifications at 

existing stationary sources. The PSD 

program applies in areas that are 

designated ‘‘attainment’’ or 

‘‘unclassifiable’’ for a national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). The PSD 

program is contained in part C of title 

I of the CAA. The ‘‘nonattainment new 

source review (NSR)’’ program applies 

in areas not in attainment of a NAAQS 

or in the Ozone Transport Region, and 

it is implemented under the 

requirements of part D of title I of the 

CAA. Collectively, EPA commonly 

refers to these two programs as the 

major NSR program. The governing EPA 

rules are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 

51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, 

Appendices S and W. There is no 

NAAQS for CO2 or any of the other 

well-mixed GHGs, nor has EPA 

proposed any such NAAQS; therefore, 

unless and until EPA takes such further 

action, the nonattainment NSR program 

does not apply to GHGs. 

The applicability of PSD to a 

particular source must be determined in 

advance of construction or modification 

and is pollutant-specific. The primary 

criterion in determining PSD 

applicability for a proposed new or 

modified source is whether the source is 

a ‘‘major emitting facility,’’ based on its 

predicted potential emissions of 

regulated pollutants, within the 

meaning of CAA section 169(1) that 

either constructs or undertakes a 

modification. EPA has implemented 

these requirements in its regulations, 

which use somewhat different 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2072 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA notes that the PSD program has historically 

operated in this fashion for all pollutants—when 

new sources or modifications are ‘‘major,’’ PSD 

applies to all pollutants that are emitted in 

significant quantities from the source or project. 

This rule does not alter that for sources or 

modifications that are major due to their GHG 

emissions. 

2 In the Tailoring Rule, EPA noted that 

commenters argued, with some variations, that the 

PSD provisions applied only to NAAQS pollutants, 

terminology than the CAA does, for 

determining PSD applicability. 

a. Major Stationary Source 

Under PSD, a ‘‘major stationary 

source’’ is any source belonging to a 

specified list of 28 source categories that 

emits or has the potential to emit (PTE) 

100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any 

air pollutant subject to regulation under 

the CAA, or any other source type that 

emits or has the potential to emit such 

pollutants in amounts equal to or greater 

than 250 tpy. We refer to these levels as 

the 100/250-tpy thresholds. A new 

source with a potential to emit (PTE) at 

or above the applicable ‘‘major 

stationary source threshold’’ is subject to 

major NSR. These limits originate from 

section 169 of the CAA, which applies 

PSD to any ‘‘major emitting facility’’ and 

defines the term to include any source 

that emits or has a PTE of 100 or 250 

tpy, depending on the source category. 

Note that the major source definition 

incorporates the phrase ‘‘subject to 

regulation,’’ which, as described later, 

will begin to include GHGs on January 

2, 2011, under our interpretation of that 

phrase as discussed in the recent 

memorandum entitled, ‘‘EPA’s 

Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program.’’ 75 

FR 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

b. Major Modifications 

PSD also applies to existing sources 

that undertake a ‘‘major modification,’’ 

which occurs when: (1) There is a 

physical change in, or change in the 

method of operation of, a ‘‘major 

stationary source;’’ (2) the change results 

in a ‘‘significant’’ emissions increase of 

a pollutant subject to regulation (equal 

to or above the significance level that 

EPA has set for the pollutant in 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)); and (3) there is a 

‘‘significant net emissions increase’’ of a 

pollutant subject to regulation that is 

equal to or above the significance level 

(defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)). 

Significance levels, which EPA has 

promulgated for criteria pollutants and 

certain other pollutants, represent a de 

minimis contribution to air quality 

problems. When EPA has not set a 

significance level for a regulated NSR 

pollutant, PSD applies to an increase of 

the pollutant in any amount (that is, in 

effect, the significance level is treated as 

zero). 

2. General Requirements for PSD 

This section provides a very brief 

summary of the main requirements of 

the PSD program. One principal 

requirement is that a new major source 

or major modification must apply best 

available control technology (BACT), 

which is determined on a case-by-case 

basis taking into account, among other 

factors, the cost effectiveness of the 

control and energy and environmental 

impacts. EPA has developed a ‘‘topdown’’ approach for BACT review, 

which involves a decision process that 

includes identification of all available 

control technologies, elimination of 

technically infeasible options, ranking 

of remaining options by control and cost 

effectiveness, and then selection of 

BACT. Under PSD, once a source is 

determined to be major for any 

regulated NSR pollutant, a BACT review 

is performed for each attainment 

pollutant that exceeds its PSD 

significance level as part of new 

construction or for modification projects 

at the source, where there is a 

significant increase and a significant net 

emissions increase of such pollutant.1

In addition to performing BACT, the 

source must analyze impacts on ambient 

air quality to assure that sources do not 

cause or contribute to violation of any 

NAAQS or PSD increments and must 

analyze impacts on soil, vegetation, and 

visibility. In addition, sources or 

modifications that would impact Class I 

areas (e.g., national parks) may be 

subject to additional requirements to 

protect air quality related values 

(AQRVs) that have been identified for 

such areas. Under PSD, if a source’s 

proposed project may impact a Class I 

area, the Federal Land Manager is 

notified and is responsible for 

evaluating a source’s projected impact 

on the AQRVs and recommending either 

approval or disapproval of the source’s 

permit application based on anticipated 

impacts. There are currently no NAAQS 

or PSD increments established for 

GHGs, and therefore these PSD 

requirements would not apply for 

GHGs, even when PSD is triggered for 

GHGs. However, if PSD is triggered for 

a GHG-emitting source, all regulated 

NSR pollutants that the new source 

emits in significant amounts would be 

subject to PSD requirements. Therefore, 

if a facility triggers NSR for non-GHG 

pollutants for which there are 

established NAAQS or increments, the 

air quality, additional impacts, and 

Class I requirements would apply to 

those pollutants. 

Pursuant to existing PSD 

requirements, the permitting authority 

must provide notice of its preliminary 

decision on a source’s application for a 

PSD permit and must provide an 

opportunity for comment by the public, 

industry, and other interested persons. 

After considering and responding to 

comments, the permitting authority 

must issue a final determination on the 

construction permit. Usually NSR 

permits are issued by a state or local air 

pollution control agency that has its 

own authority to issue PSD permits 

under a permit program that has been 

approved by EPA for inclusion in its 

SIP. In some areas, EPA has delegated 

its authority to issue PSD permits under 

federal regulations to the state or local 

agency. In other areas, EPA issues the 

permits under its own authority. 

C. What are the CAA requirements to 

include the PSD program in the SIP? 

The CAA contemplates that the PSD 

program be implemented in the first 

instance by the states and requires that 

states include PSD requirements in their 

SIPs. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires 

that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * include a program to provide for 

* * * regulation of the modification and 

construction of any stationary source within 

the areas covered by the plan as necessary to 

assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit 

program as required in part[] C * * * of this 

subchapter. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that— 

Each implementation plan * * * shall 

* * * meet the applicable requirements of 

* * * part C of this subchapter (relating to 

significant deterioration of air quality and 

visibility protection). 

CAA section 161 provides that— 

Each applicable implementation plan shall 

contain emission limitations and such other 

measures as may be necessary, as determined 

under regulations promulgated under this 

part [C], to prevent significant deterioration 

of air quality for such region * * * 

designated * * * as attainment or 

unclassifiable. 

These provisions, read in conjunction 

with the PSD applicability provisions as 

well as other provisions such as the 

BACT provision the under CAA Section 

165(a)(4), mandate that SIPs include 

PSD programs that are applicable to, 

among other things, any air pollutant 

that is subject to regulation. As 

discussed below, this includes GHGs on 

and after January 2, 2011.2 A number of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2073 

and not GHG, and EPA responded that the PSD 

provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, including GHG. See 75 FR 31560–62 

(June 3, 2010). EPA maintains its position that the 

PSD provisions apply to all pollutants subject to 

regulation, and the Agency incorporates by 

reference the discussion of this issue in the 

Tailoring Rule. 

3The Tailoring Rule also applies to the title V 

program, which requires operating permits for 

existing sources. However, today’s action does not 

affect Virginia’s title V program. 

states do not have PSD programs 

approved into their SIPs. In those states, 

EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 

govern, and either EPA or the state as 

EPA’s delegatee acts as the permitting 

authority. However, most states have 

PSD programs that have been approved 

into their SIPs, and these states 

implement their PSD programs and act 

as the permitting authority. Virginia’s 

PSD program has been granted a 

‘‘limited’’ approval. The approval was 

limited because the definition of 

‘‘baseline actual emissions’’ at 9 VAC5 

Chapter 80 differs from the federal 

definition at 40 CFR 51.166 (b)(47). This 

issue will not prevent today’s proposed 

action from being fully approved. 

D. What actions has EPA taken 

concerning PSD requirements for GHGemitting sources? 

1. What are the Endangerment Finding, 

the Light Duty Vehicle Rule, and the 

Johnson Memo Reconsideration? 

By notice dated December 15, 2009, 

and pursuant to CAA section 202(a), 

EPA issued two findings regarding 

GHGs that are commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘Endangerment Finding’’ and the 

‘‘Cause or Contribute Finding.’’ 

‘‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute 

Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under 

Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act,’’ 74 

FR 66496. In the Endangerment Finding, 

the Administrator found that six longlived and directly emitted GHGs—CO2, 

CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health and welfare. In the Cause 

or Contribute Finding, the 

Administrator ‘‘define[d] the air 

pollutant as the aggregate group of the 

same six * * * greenhouse gases,’’ 74 

FR 66536, and found that the combined 

emissions of this air pollutant from new 

motor vehicles and new motor vehicle 

engines contribute to the GHG air 

pollution that endangers public health 

and welfare. 

By notice dated May 7, 2010, EPA 

published what is commonly referred to 

as the ‘‘Light-Duty Vehicle Rule’’ 

(LDVR), which for the first time 

established federal controls on GHGs 

emitted from light-duty vehicles. ‘‘LightDuty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Standards and Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy Standards; Final Rule.’’ 75 FR 

25324. In its applicability provisions, 

the LDVR specifies that it ‘‘contains 

standards and other regulations 

applicable to the emissions of six 

greenhouse gases,’’ including CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. 75 FR 25686 

(40 CFR 86.1818–12(a)). Shortly before 

finalizing the LDVR, by notice dated 

April 2, 2010, EPA published a notice 

commonly referred to as the Johnson 

Memo Reconsideration. On December 

18, 2008, EPA issued a memorandum, 

‘‘EPA’s Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by 

Federal Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Permit Program’’ 

(known as the ‘‘Johnson Memo’’ or the 

‘‘PSD Interpretive Memo,’’ and referred 

to in this preamble as the ‘‘Interpretive 

Memo’’), that set forth EPA’s 

interpretation regarding which EPA and 

state actions, with respect to a 

previously unregulated pollutant, cause 

that pollutant to become ‘‘subject to 

regulation’’ under the CAA. Whether a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ is 

important for the purposes of 

determining whether it is covered under 

the federal PSD permitting program. The 

Interpretive Memo established that a 

pollutant is ‘‘subject to regulation’’ only 

if it is subject to either a provision in the 

CAA or regulation adopted by EPA 

under the CAA that requires actual 

control of emissions of that pollutant 

(referred to as the ‘‘actual control 

interpretation’’). On February 17, 2009, 

EPA granted a petition for 

reconsideration on the Interpretive 

Memo and announced its intent to 

conduct a rulemaking to allow for 

public comment on the issues raised in 

the memorandum and on related issues. 

EPA also clarified that the Interpretive 

Memo would remain in effect pending 

reconsideration. 

On March 29, 2010, EPA signed a 

notice conveying its decision to 

continue applying (with one limited 

refinement) the Interpretive Memo’s 

interpretation of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

(‘‘Interpretation of Regulations that 

Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean 

Air Act Permitting Programs,’’ 75 FR 

17004). EPA concluded that the ‘‘actual 

control interpretation’’ is the most 

appropriate interpretation to apply 

given the policy implications. However, 

EPA refined the Agency’s interpretation 

in one respect: EPA established that 

PSD permitting requirements apply to a 

newly regulated pollutant at the time a 

regulatory requirement to control 

emissions of that pollutant ‘‘takes effect’’ 

(rather than upon promulgation or the 

legal effective date of the regulation 

containing such a requirement). In 

addition, based on the anticipated 

promulgation of the LDVR, EPA stated 

that the GHG requirements of the 

vehicle rule would take effect on 

January 2, 2011, because that is the 

earliest date that a 2012 model year 

vehicle may be introduced into 

commerce. In other words, the 

compliance obligation under the LDVR 

does not occur until a manufacturer may 

introduce into commerce vehicles that 

are required to comply with GHG 

standards, which will begin with model 

year 2012 and will not occur before 

January 2, 2011. 

2. What is EPA’s Tailoring Rule? 

On June 3, 2010 (effective August 2, 

2010), EPA promulgated a final 

rulemaking, the Tailoring Rule, for the 

purpose of relieving overwhelming 

permitting burdens that would, in the 

absence of the rule, fall on permitting 

authorities and sources. 75 FR 31514. 

EPA accomplished this by tailoring the 

applicability criteria that determine 

which GHG emission sources become 

subject to the PSD program 3 of the 

CAA. In particular, EPA established in 

the Tailoring Rule a phase-in approach 

for PSD applicability and established 

the first two steps of the phase-in for the 

largest GHG-emitters. Additionally, EPA 

committed to certain follow-up actions 

regarding future steps beyond the first 

two, discussed in more detail later in 

this notice. 

For the first step of the Tailoring Rule, 

which will begin on January 2, 2011, 

PSD requirements will apply to major 

stationary source GHG emissions only if 

the sources are subject to PSD anyway 

due to their emissions of non-GHG 

pollutants. Therefore, in the first step, 

EPA will not require sources or 

modifications to evaluate whether they 

are subject to PSD requirements solely 

on account of their GHG emissions. 

Specifically, for PSD, Step 1 requires 

that as of January 2, 2011, the applicable 

requirements of PSD, most notably, the 

BACT requirement, will apply to 

projects that increase net GHG 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e, 

but only if the project also significantly 

increases emissions of at least one nonGHG pollutant. 

The second step of the Tailoring Rule, 

beginning on July 1, 2011, will phase in 

additional large sources of GHG 

emissions. New sources that emit, or 

have the PTE, at least 100,000 tpy CO2e 

will become subject to the PSD 

requirements. In addition, sources that 

emit or have the PTE at least 100,000 

tpy CO2e and that undertake a 

modification that increases net GHG 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2074 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4Narrowing EPA’s approval will ensure that for 

federal purposes, sources with GHG emissions that 

are less than the Tailoring Rule’s emission 

thresholds will not be obligated under federal law 

to obtain PSD permits during the gap between when 

GHG PSD requirements go into effect on January 2, 

2011 and when either (1) EPA approves a SIP 

revision adopting EPA’s tailoring approach, or (2) 

if a state opts to regulate smaller GHG-emitting 

sources, the state demonstrates to EPA that it has 

adequate resources to handle permitting for such 

sources. EPA expects to finalize the narrowing 

action prior to the January 2, 2011 deadline with 

respect to those States for which EPA will not have 

approved the Tailoring Rule thresholds in their SIPs 

by that time. 

5The term ‘‘greenhouse gases’’ is commonly used 

to refer generally to gases that have heat-trapping 

properties. However, in this notice, unless noted 

otherwise, we use it to refer specifically to the 

pollutant regulated in the LDVR. 

6The relevant thresholds are 100 tpy for title V, 

and 250 tpy for PSD, except for 28 categories listed 

in EPA regulations for which the PSD threshold is 

100 tpy. 

emissions by at least 75,000 tpy CO2e 

will also be subject to PSD 

requirements. For both steps, EPA notes 

that if sources or modifications exceed 

these CO2e-adjusted GHG triggers, they 

are not covered by permitting 

requirements unless their GHG 

emissions also exceed the 

corresponding mass-based triggers in 

tpy. 

EPA believes that the costs to the 

sources and the administrative burdens 

to the permitting authorities of PSD 

permitting will be manageable at the 

levels in these initial two steps and that 

it would be administratively infeasible 

to subject additional sources to PSD 

requirements at those times. However, 

EPA also intends to issue a 

supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking in 2011, in which the 

Agency will propose or solicit comment 

on a third step of the phase-in that 

would include more sources, beginning 

on July 1, 2013. In the Tailoring Rule, 

EPA established an enforceable 

commitment that the Agency will 

complete this rulemaking by July 1, 

2012, which will allow 1 year’s notice 

before Step 3 would take effect. In 

addition, EPA committed to explore 

streamlining techniques that may well 

make the permitting programs much 

more efficient to administer for GHG, 

and that therefore may allow their 

expansion to smaller sources. EPA 

expects that the initial streamlining 

techniques will take several years to 

develop and implement. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA also 

included a provision, that no source 

with emissions below 50,000 tpy CO2e, 

and no modification resulting in net 

GHG increases of less than 50,000 tpy 

CO2e, will be subject to PSD permitting 

before at least 6 years (i.e., April 30, 

2016). This is because EPA has 

concluded that at the present time, the 

administrative burdens that would 

accompany permitting sources below 

this level would be so great that even 

with the streamlining actions that EPA 

may be able to develop and implement 

in the next several years, and even with 

the increases in permitting resources 

that EPA can reasonably expect the 

permitting authorities to acquire, it 

would be impossible to administer the 

permit programs for these sources until 

at least 2016. 

As EPA explained in the Tailoring 

Rule, the threshold limitations are 

necessary because without it, PSD 

would apply to all stationary sources 

that emit or have the PTE more than 100 

or 250 tons of GHG per year beginning 

on January 2, 2011. This is the date 

when EPA’s recently promulgated LDVR 

takes effect, imposing control 

requirements for the first time on CO2

and other GHGs. If this January 2, 2011, 

date were to pass without the Tailoring 

Rule being in effect, PSD requirements 

would apply to GHG emissions at the 

100/250 tpy applicability levels 

provided under a literal reading of the 

CAA as of that date. From that point 

forward, a source owner proposing to 

construct any new major source that 

emits at or higher than the applicability 

levels (and which therefore may be 

referred to as a ‘‘major’’ source) or 

modify any existing major source in a 

way that would increase GHG emissions 

would need to obtain a permit under the 

PSD program that addresses these 

emissions before construction or 

modification could begin. 

Under these circumstances, many 

small sources would be burdened by the 

costs of the individualized PSD control 

technology requirements and permit 

applications that the PSD provisions, 

absent streamlining, require. 

Additionally, state and local permitting 

authorities would be burdened by the 

extraordinary number of these permit 

applications, which are orders of 

magnitude greater than the current 

inventory of permits and would vastly 

exceed the current administrative 

resources of the permitting authorities. 

Permit gridlock would result since the 

permitting authorities would likely be 

able to issue only a tiny fraction of the 

permits requested. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA adopted 

regulatory language codifying the phasein approach. As explained in that 

rulemaking, many state, local and tribal 

area programs will likely be able to 

immediately implement the approach 

without rule or statutory changes by, for 

example, interpreting the term ‘‘subject 

to regulation’’ that is part of the 

applicability provisions for PSD 

permitting. EPA has requested 

permitting authorities to confirm that 

they will follow this implementation 

approach for their programs, and if they 

cannot, then EPA has requested that 

they notify the Agency so that we can 

take appropriate follow-up action to 

narrow federal approval of their 

programs before GHGs become subject 

to PSD permitting on January 2, 2011.4

On July 28, 2010, Virginia provided a 

letter to EPA with confirmation that the 

Commonwealth has the authority to 

regulate GHG in its PSD and title V 

programs. See the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking for a copy of 

Virginia’s letter. 

The thresholds that EPA established 

in the Tailoring Rule are based on CO2e 

for the aggregate sum of six GHGs that 

constitute the pollutant that will be 

subject to regulation, which we refer to 

as GHG.5 These gases are: CO2, CH4, 

N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. Thus, in 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule, EPA provided that 

PSD applicability is based on the 

quantity that results when the mass 

emissions of each of these gases is 

multiplied by the GWP of that gas, and 

then summed for all six gases. However, 

EPA further provided that in order for 

a source’s GHG emissions to trigger PSD 

requirements, the quantity of the GHG 

emissions must equal or exceed both the 

applicability thresholds established in 

the Tailoring Rule on a CO2e basis and 

the statutory thresholds of 100 or 250 

tpy on a mass basis.6 Similarly, in order 

for a source to be subject to the PSD 

modification requirements, the source’s 

net GHG emissions increase must 

exceed the applicable significance level 

on a CO2e basis and must also result in 

a net mass increase of the constituent 

gases combined. 

3. What is the GHG SIP Call? 

By Federal Register notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. In that action, along with 

the companion GHG FIP rulemaking 

published at the same time, EPA took 

steps to ensure that in the 13 States that 

do not appear to have authority to issue 

PSD permits to GHG-emitting sources at 

present, either the State or EPA will 

have the authority to issue such permits 

by January 2, 2011. EPA explained that 

although for most states, either the state 

or EPA is already authorized to issue 

PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources 

as of that date, our preliminary 

information shows that these 13 States 

have EPA-approved PSD programs that 

do not appear to include GHG-emitting 

sources and therefore do not appear to 

authorize these States to issue PSD 

permits to such sources. Therefore, EPA 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2075 

7As explained in the proposed GHG SIP Call (75 

FR 53892, 53896), EPA intends to finalize its 

finding of substantial inadequacy and the SIP call 

for the 13 listed states by December 1, 2010. EPA 

requested that the states for which EPA is proposing 

a SIP call identify the deadline—between 3 weeks 

and 12 months from the date of signature of the 

final SIP Call—that they would accept for 

submitting their corrective SIP revision. 

proposed to find that these 13 States’ 

SIPs are substantially inadequate to 

comply with CAA requirements and, 

accordingly, proposed to issue a SIP 

Call to require a SIP revision that 

applies their SIP PSD programs to GHGemitting sources. In the companion 

GHG FIP rulemaking, EPA proposed a 

FIP that would give EPA authority to 

apply EPA’s PSD program to GHGemitting sources in any State that is 

unable to submit a corrective SIP 

revision by its deadline. Virginia was 

not one of the States for which EPA 

proposed a SIP Call. 

II. What is the relationship between 

today’s proposed action and EPA’s 

proposed GHG SIP Call and GHG FIP? 

As noted above, by notice dated 

September 2, 2010, EPA proposed the 

GHG SIP Call. At the same time, EPA 

proposed a FIP to apply in any state that 

is unable to submit, by its deadline, a 

SIP revision to ensure that the state has 

authority to issue PSD permits to GHGemitting sources.7 As discussed in 

Section IV of this rulemaking, Virginia 

interprets its current PSD regulations as 

providing them with the authority to 

regulate GHG, and as such, Virginia is 

not included on the list of areas for the 

proposed SIP call. Additionally, 

Virginia would not be subject to the FIP 

to implement GHG for PSD 

applicability. Virginia’s October 27, 

2010, proposed SIP revision (the subject 

of this rulemaking) merely modifies 

Virginia’s SIP to establish appropriate 

thresholds for determining which 

stationary sources and modification 

projects become subject to permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

the PSD program of the CAA. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information (1) 

that are generated or developed before 

the commencement of a voluntary 

environmental assessment; (2) that are 

prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) that demonstrate 

a clear, imminent and substantial 

danger to the public health or 

environment; or (4) that are required by 

law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. * * *’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 

10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the extent 

consistent with requirements imposed 

by Federal law,’’ any person making a 

voluntary disclosure of information to a 

state agency regarding a violation of an 

environmental statute, regulation, 

permit, or administrative order is 

granted immunity from administrative 

or civil penalty. The Attorney General’s 

January 12, 1998 opinion states that the 

quoted language renders this statute 

inapplicable to enforcement of any 

Federally authorized programs, since 

‘‘no immunity could be afforded from 

administrative, civil, or criminal 

penalties because granting such 

immunity would not be consistent with 

Federal law, which is one of the criteria 

for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD 

program consistent with the Federal 

requirements. In any event, because 

EPA has also determined that a state 

audit privilege and immunity law can 

affect only state enforcement and cannot 

have any impact on Federal 

enforcement authorities, EPA may at 

any time invoke its authority under the 

CAA, including, for example, sections 

113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the 

requirements or prohibitions of the state 

plan, independently of any state 

enforcement effort. In addition, citizen 

enforcement under section 304 of the 

CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or 

any, state audit privilege or immunity 

law. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Virginia’s 

SIP revision? 

On October 27, 2010, VADEQ 

provided a revision to Virginia’s SIP to 

EPA for approval. This revision to 

Virginia’s SIP is necessary because 

without it, PSD requirements would 

apply, as of January 2, 2011, at the 100- 

or 250-tpy levels provided under the 

CAA. This would greatly increase the 

number of required permits, imposing 

undue costs on small sources; which 

would overwhelm Virginia’s permitting 

resources and severely impair the 

function of the program. 

Virginia’s October 27, 2010, proposed 

SIP revision establishes thresholds for 

determining which stationary sources 

and modification projects become 

subject to permitting requirements for 

GHG emissions under Virginia’s PSD 

program. Specifically, Virginia’s 

October 27, 2010, proposed SIP revision 

includes changes to VADEQ’s Rule 

9VAC5, specifically the creation of 

Chapter 85: Permits for Stationary 

Sources Subject to Regulation, and 

addresses the thresholds for GHG 

permitting applicability. 

The current SIP-approved program 

(adopted prior to the promulgation of 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule) applies to major 

stationary sources (having the potential 

to emit at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or 

more of a regulated NSR pollutant, 

depending on the type of source) or 

modifications constructing in areas 

designated attainment or unclassifiable 

with respect to the NAAQS. 

The changes to Virginia’s PSD 

program regulations at 9VAC5 Chapter 

85: Permits for Stationary Sources 

Subject to Regulation are substantively 

the same as the federal provisions 

amended in EPA’s Tailoring Rule. As 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

2076 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

part of its review of the Virginia 

submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line 

review of Virginia’s proposed revision 

and has preliminarily determined that 

they are consistent with the Tailoring 

Rule. These changes to Virginia’s 

regulations are also consistent with 

section 110 of the CAA because they are 

incorporating GHGs for regulation in the 

Virginia SIP. 

V. Proposed Action 

Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, 

EPA is proposing to approve Virginia’s 

October 27, 2010, SIP revision, relating 

to PSD requirements for GHG-emitting 

sources. Specifically, Virginia’s October 

27, 2010, proposed SIP revision 

establishes appropriate emissions 

thresholds for determining PSD 

applicability to new and modified GHGemitting sources in accordance with 

EPA’s Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the 

preliminary determination that this SIP 

revision is approvable because it is in 

accordance with the CAA and EPA 

regulations regarding PSD permitting for 

GHGs. EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

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 the State’s law 

as meeting federal requirements and 

does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

the State’s 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 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 proposed SIP 

revision pertaining to greenhouse gas 

permitting 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: January 3, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–495 Filed 1–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0042; MO 

92210–0–0009–B4] 

RIN 1018–AW90 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designation of Critical 

Habitat for Tumbling Creek Cavesnail 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

reopening of the comment period on 

June 23, 2010, proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 

cavesnail (Antrobia culveri) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). We also announce the 

availability of a draft economic analysis 

(DEA) of the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the Tumbling Creek 

cavesnail and an amended required 

determinations section of the proposal. 

We are reopening the comment period 

for an additional 30 days to allow all 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the items listed above. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted and will be fully 

considered in preparation of the final 

rule. 

DATES: We will consider public 

comments we receive on or before 

February 11, 2011. Comments must be 

received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

the closing date. Any comments that we 

receive after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on this 

action. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0042. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R3– 

ES–2010–0042; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will post all comments on http://

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

McKenzie, Endangered Species 

Coordinator, Columbia Missouri 

Ecological Services Field Office, 101 

Park DeVille Dr.; Suite A, Columbia, 

MO 65203; telephone (573) 234–2132; 

facsimile (573) 234–2181. Persons who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

(800) 877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from the proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific data 

available and will be as accurate and 

effective as possible. Therefore, we 

request comments or information from 

other concerned government agencies, 

the scientific community, industry, or 

any other interested party during this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS