Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13055 

beneficial ownership information in 

mitigating money laundering/terrorist 

financing risk; or (iii) an inability to 

obtain the required information due to 

other legal requirements? 

FinCEN is seeking comment to 

determine if there are certain types of, 

or thresholds for, products, services, or 

customers, with respect to which a 

financial institution should not be 

required to obtain beneficial ownership 

information, due to substantially 

reduced risk. For example, should 

customers that are exempt from the CIP 

Rules, also be exempt from beneficial 

ownership identification? Additionally, 

FinCEN is seeking comment as to 

whether there are certain products or 

services offered by financial institutions 

that, due to ancillary statutory or 

regulatory obligations, would prohibit 

compliance with a CDD requirement to 

obtain beneficial ownership information 

as outlined in this ANPRM. FinCEN is 

also seeking comment on whether there 

are significant differences in risks or 

perceived ability to obtain beneficial 

ownership information with respect to 

foreign versus domestic customers and/ 

or beneficial owners. 

9. What financial institutions should 

not be covered by a CDD rule based on 

products and services offered? 

FinCEN is considering whether a CDD 

program rule as described in this 

ANPRM should be more widely 

applicable to financial institutions not 

currently subject to a CIP Rule, and is 

seeking comments from industry and 

interested parties to determine if there 

are types of financial institutions 

currently covered under FinCEN’s 

regulations and subject to SAR and 

AML Program rules, that should not be 

covered by a CDD obligation, either 

because the products and services 

offered are not consistent with the 

information sought in a CDD obligation 

or for any other reason. 

10. What would be the impact on 

consumers or other customers of a CDD 

program including the elements 

identified above? 

FinCEN is seeking comment regarding 

the potential impact on consumers or 

customers of financial institutions. 

What are the benefits and challenges of 

the above suggested CDD requirements 

that may exist between financial 

institutions and customers taking into 

account the objective of increasing the 

inclusion in the financial system of 

traditionally underserved individuals? 

Will a CDD program affect the 

willingness or ability of consumers or 

others to use or access certain financial 

institutions or services? 

VI. Conclusion 

With this ANPRM, FinCEN is seeking 

input on the questions set forth above. 

FinCEN also is soliciting comments on 

the impact to law enforcement or 

authorities, regulatory agencies, and 

consumers, and welcomes comments on 

all aspects of the ANPRM, and all 

interested parties are encouraged to 

provide their views. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

James H. Freis, Jr., 

Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5187 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0118; FRL–9642–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Alabama: 

Removal of State Low-Reid Vapor 

Pressure Requirement for the 

Birmingham Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve, 

through parallel processing, a draft 

revision to the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on January 10, 2012. The proposed 

revision modifies Alabama’s SIP to 

move Chapter 335–3–20 ‘‘Control of 

Fuels,’’ which includes the regulation 

that governs the State’s 7.0 pounds per 

square inch (psi) requirement for the 

low-Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) fuel 

program in Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Birmingham Area’’) from the active 

measures portion of the Alabama SIP to 

the contingency measures portions of 

the maintenance plans for the 

Birmingham Area for the ozone national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS 

or standards), and of the proposed 

maintenance plans for the 1997 annual 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards, 

and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, 

if finalized. If this change to the SIP is 

finalized, the federal RVP requirement 

of 7.8 psi will apply for the Birmingham 

Area. EPA is proposing to approve this 

SIP revision because the State has 

demonstrated that it is consistent with 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0118, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0118, 

Regulatory Development Section, Air 

Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0118. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made 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 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9043. 

Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via 

electronic mail at 

lakeman.sean@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is parallel processing? 

II. What is the background of the RVP 

requirement? 

III. What are the section 110(l) requirements? 

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

submittal? 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is parallel processing? 

Consistent with EPA regulations 

found at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, 

section 2.3.1, for purposes of expediting 

review of a SIP submittal, parallel 

processing allows a state to submit a 

plan to EPA prior to actual adoption by 

the state. Generally, the state submits a 

copy of the proposed regulation or other 

revisions to EPA before conducting its 

public hearing. EPA reviews this 

proposed state action, and prepares a 

notice of proposed rulemaking. EPA’s 

notice of proposed rulemaking is 

published in the Federal Register 

during the same time frame that the 

state is holding its public process. The 

state and EPA then provide for 

concurrent public comment periods on 

both the state action and federal action. 

If the revision that is finally adopted 

and submitted by the State is changed 

in aspects other than those identified in 

the proposed rulemaking on the parallel 

process submission, EPA will evaluate 

those changes and if necessary and 

appropriate, issue another notice of 

proposed rulemaking. The final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been 

adopted by the state and submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP. 

On January 10, 2012, the State of 

Alabama, through ADEM, submitted a 

request for parallel processing of a draft 

SIP revision that the State had already 

taken through public comment. ADEM 

requested parallel processing so that 

EPA could begin to take action on its 

draft SIP revision in advance of the 

State’s submission of the final SIP 

revision. As stated above, the final 

rulemaking action by EPA will occur 

only after the SIP revision has been: (1) 

Adopted by Alabama, (2) submitted 

formally to EPA for incorporation into 

the SIP; and (3) evaluated by EPA, 

including any changes made by the 

State after the January 10, 2012, draft 

was submitted to EPA. 

II. What is the background of the RVP 

requirement? 

The following subsections of this 

proposed rulemaking summarize both 

the federal and state RVP requirements 

in the Birmingham Area. Volatility is 

the property of a liquid fuel that defines 

its evaporation characteristics. RVP is 

an abbreviation for ‘‘Reid vapor 

pressure,’’ a common measure of and 

generic term for gasoline volatility. 

Pursuant to the CAA, EPA regulates the 

vapor pressure of gasoline sold at retail 

stations during the high ozone season 

(June 1 to September 15) to reduce 

evaporative emissions from gasoline 

that contribute to ground-level ozone 

and diminish the effects of ozonerelated health problems. 

A. Background for the Federal 

Requirement for RVP for the 

Birmingham Area 

Section 211(h) of the CAA requires 

EPA to set a maximum RVP standard of 

9.0 psi during the high ozone season, 

which is defined as June 1st through 

September 15th of each year. See also 40 

CFR 80.27. The CAA provides for more 

stringent requirements to be established 

for ozone nonattainment areas. 

Specifically, CAA section 211(h) states: 

Not later than 6 months after November 15, 

1990, the Administrator shall promulgate 

regulations making it unlawful for any 

person during the high ozone season (as 

defined by the Administrator) to sell, offer for 

sale, dispense, supply, offer for supply, 

transport, or introduce into commerce 

gasoline with a Reid Vapor Pressure in excess 

of 9.0 pounds per square inch (psi). Such 

regulations shall also establish more stringent 

Reid Vapor Pressure standards in a 

nonattainment area as the Administrator 

finds necessary to generally achieve 

comparable evaporative emissions (on a pervehicle basis) in nonattainment areas, taking 

into consideration the enforceability of such 

standards, the need of an area for emission 

control and economic factors. 

In accordance with CAA section 211(h), 

EPA established a two-phase reduction 

in high ozone season commercial 

gasoline volatility. These rules focus on 

reducing gasoline emissions of volatile 

organic compounds (VOC). VOC and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) are precursors for 

ground-level ozone. Phase I was 

applicable to calendar years 1989 

through 1991. Depending on the state 

and month, gasoline RVP was not to 

exceed 10.5 psi, 9.5 psi, or 9.0 psi. See 

54 FR 11868 (March 22, 1989). Phase II 

was applicable to calendar years 1992 

and later. Depending on the state and 

month, gasoline RVP may not exceed 

9.0 psi or 7.8 psi. See 55 FR 23658 (June 

11, 1990). A current listing of the RVP 

requirements for states can be found on 

EPA’s Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/volatility/ 

standards.htm. 

The Birmingham Area was originally 

classified as a 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area by EPA on March 3, 

1978 (43 FR 8962). The Birmingham 

nonattainment Area at that time was 

geographically defined as Jefferson 

County, Alabama. On November 6, 

1991, by operation of law under section 

181(a) of the CAA, EPA classified the 

Birmingham nonattainment area as a 

marginal nonattainment area for the 1- 

hour ozone and added Shelby County to 

the nonattainment area (56 FR 56693). 

The nonattainment classification for the 

Birmingham marginal ozone area was 

based on ambient air sampling 

measurements for ozone made during 

1987–1989. As an ozone nonattainment 

area, the Birmingham Area was subject 

to the federal RVP requirements of 7.8 

psi for both Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties. Subsequently, in 2001, EPA 

approved a state fuel program that 

imposed a 7.0 psi requirement for this 

area, under section 211(c)(4)(C) of the 

CAA. The action being proposed today 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13057 

1On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised 

8-hour ozone NAAQS—also known as the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Currently, the Agency is 

reviewing individual area’s compliance with the 

revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS and anticipates 

completing a designation process in the Spring of 

2012. Today’s rulemaking is not related to the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS, however, EPA notes that 

2008–2010 and preliminary 2009–2011 monitoring 

data suggests that the Birmingham Area is attaining 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

2The Birmingham Area was also designated 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 and the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS. In association with these 

redesignation request, EPA proposed to approve 

maintenance plans which assume a high ozone 

season RVP requirement of 7.8 psi as opposed to 

the State requirement of 7.0 psi. 

would move the 7.0 psi requirement 

from the active portion of the Alabama 

SIP to the contingency measures portion 

of the maintenance plans for the ozone, 

1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

Throughout this proposed rulemaking, 

EPA’s reference to the maintenance 

plans for the 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS is in reference to the proposed 

maintenance plans as these plans have 

been proposed for approval by EPA but 

have not yet been finalized. 

B. Background for the State 

Requirement for RVP in the Birmingham 

Area 

Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the CAA 

allows states to seek a waiver from EPA 

to adopt into the federally-approved 

SIP, a state fuel program that is more 

stringent than federal requirements. 

Specifically, CAA section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) 

states: 

A State may prescribe and enforce, for 

purposes of motor vehicle emission control, 

a control or prohibition respecting the use of 

a fuel or fuel additive in a motor vehicle or 

motor vehicle engine if an applicable 

implementation plan for such State under 

section 7410 of this title so provides The 

Administrator may approve such provision 

in an implementation plan, or promulgate an 

implementation containing such a provision, 

only if he finds that the State control or 

prohibition is necessary to achieve the 

national primary or secondary ambient air 

quality standard which the plan implements. 

The Administrator may find that a State 

control or prohibition is necessary to achieve 

that standard if no other measure that would 

bring about timely attainment exist, or if 

other measures exist and are technically 

possible to implement, but are unreasonable 

or impracticable. The Administrator may 

make a finding of necessity under this 

subparagraph even if the plan for the area 

does not contain an approved demonstration 

of timely attainment. 

As mentioned above, the Birmingham 

Area was designated as a marginal 1- 

hour ozone nonattainment area on 

November 6, 1991. See 56 FR 56693. 

Marginal 1-hour ozone nonattainment 

areas such as the Birmingham Area were 

required to attain the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS no later than November 15, 

1993. However, the Birmingham Area 

did not attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

by the required deadline and thus, EPA 

issued a SIP Call for Alabama to develop 

and submit a plan on how the Area 

would comply with the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 

This plan, also known as an attainment 

demonstration, contained the control 

strategies and underlying regulations 

that Alabama would use to come into 

compliance with the 1-hour ozone 

NAAQS. On November 1, 2000, ADEM 

submitted the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration for the Birmingham Area 

as a revision to the Alabama SIP. Among 

other control strategies and regulations, 

this attainment demonstration included 

a request for EPA to approve Alabama’s 

regulation to establish requirements for 

low sulfur and low-RVP requirements 

for the Birmingham Area pursuant to 

211(c)(4)(C)(i). 

In a final rulemaking on November 7, 

2001 (66 FR 56218), EPA determined 

that Alabama’s November 1, 2000, SIP 

revision contained the necessary data 

and analyses to support a finding under 

section 211(c)(4)(C)(i) that the State’s 

low sulfur and low-RVP requirements 

were necessary for the Birmingham Area 

to achieve the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. In 

summary, Alabama’s low sulfur/lowRVP fuel program required that all 

gasoline sold during the control period 

(June 1st through September 15th) in the 

Birmingham Area contain a maximum 

RVP of 7.0 psi and maximum sulfur 

levels of 150 parts per million volumeweighted average. Alabama’s control on 

sulfur applied only through the summer 

of 2003. After that time, federal controls 

on sulfur in gasoline went into effect. 

There was no termination date for the 

low-RVP portion of Alabama’s fuel 

regulation. 

The Birmingham Area subsequently 

attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS and 

was redesignated for that NAAQS on 

March 12, 2004. See 69 FR 11798. At 

that time, ADEM included the 7.0 psi 

RVP requirement in its maintenance 

plan. Thereafter, the Birmingham Area 

was designated as a nonattainment for 

the more stringent 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004 (69 FR 

23858). On May 12, 2006 (71 FR 27631), 

the Birmingham Area was redesignated 

to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.1 As part of the requirement to 

be redesignated to attainment, ADEM 

developed a maintenance plan pursuant 

to CAA section 175A(a) that 

demonstrated the Area would maintain 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for at 

least 10 years after redesignation. In that 

maintenance demonstration, ADEM, in 

its emissions projections, adopted a 

conservative approach to the fuel 

requirement in the Area by assuming a 

high ozone season RVP requirement of 

9.0 psi as opposed to 7.0 psi.2 The State 

demonstrated that the Area could 

continue to maintain the ozone NAAQS 

with the 9.0 psi requirement. 

Nonetheless, the State’s RVP 

requirement of 7.0 psi remains in the 

active portion of the SIP, and the federal 

RVP requirement of 7.8 psi also remains 

applicable through 40 CFR 80.27. 

On January 10, 2012, ADEM 

submitted a draft revision to Alabama’s 

SIP to move Chapter 335–3–20 ‘‘Control 

of Fuels’’ from the active measures 

portion of the Alabama SIP to the 

contingency measures portions of the 

maintenance plans for the applicable 

ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. ADEM 

explained that the 7.0 psi requirement 

would be moved to the maintenance 

plans as a contingency measure for the 

ozone NAAQS, the annual 1997 PM2.5

standard and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards; however, it would be 

removed from the SIP as an active 

requirement. The applicable RVP would 

then be the federal standard of 7.8 psi. 

Because the state RVP requirement of 

7.0 psi is a part of the federallyapproved SIP for Alabama, the State 

must meet the requirements of CAA 

section 110(l) to move this state-level 

RVP requirement from the active 

measures portions of the SIP to the 

contingency measures portions of the 

affected maintenance plans. More 

details on CAA section 110(l) 

requirements are provided below. 

III. What are the Section 110(l) 

requirements? 

EPA’s primary consideration for 

determining the approvability of 

Alabama’s January 10, 2012, draft SIP 

revision is whether this requested action 

complies with section 110(l) of the 

CAA. Section 110(l) of the CAA states: 

Plan Revision—Each revision to an 

implementation plan submitted by a State 

under this chapter shall be adapted by such 

State after reasonable notice and public 

hearing. The Administrator shall not approve 

a revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable further 

progress (as defined in section 7501 of this 

title), or any other applicable requirement of 

this chapter. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). 

Because the RVP requirements 

currently are a part of the SIP, the 

revision must meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(l). Alabama’s January 

10, 2012, draft SIP revision is requesting 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The six NAAQS that EPA establishes health and 

welfare based standards are CO, lead, NO2, ozone, 

particulate matter, and SO2. 

only that the state-level requirement of 

7.0 psi be moved from the active 

measures portions of the Alabama SIP to 

the contingency measures portions of 

the maintenance plans for the ozone 

NAAQS, the annual 1997 PM2.5

standards and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. Therefore, as part of 

Alabama’s SIP revision request to 

change its RVP requirement, Alabama 

must demonstrate that the revision will 

not interfere with the attainment or 

maintenance of any of the NAAQS or 

any other applicable requirement of the 

CAA. 

Developing what is necessary for a 

SIP revision to comply with section 

110(l) is a case-by-case determination 

based upon the circumstances of each 

revision. EPA interprets 110(l) as 

applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, 

including those that have been 

promulgated but for which the EPA has 

not yet made designations. The specific 

elements of the SIP revision depend on 

the circumstances and emissions 

analyses. The State’s request does not 

involve a modification of the 7.8 psi 

federal RVP requirement, which is 

separately applicable by federal 

regulation (40 CFR 80.27) to both 

Jefferson and Shelby Counties. Thus, 

EPA’s proposed approval action 

considers the potential impacts with 

regard to a difference in RVP 

requirements for the Birmingham Area 

between the state-level requirement of 

7.0 psi and the federal-level requirement 

of 7.8 psi. EPA’s analysis of Alabama’s 

January 10, 2012, draft SIP revision is 

provided below. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Alabama’s submittal? 

ADEM submitted a draft revision to 

the Alabama SIP on January 10, 2012, 

for parallel processing. The purpose of 

Alabama’s January 10, 2012, draft SIP 

revision is to move the state-level RVP 

requirement of 7.0 psi from the active 

measures portions of the SIP to the 

contingency measures portions of the 

SIP. The applicable RVP requirement 

would then be the federal 7.8 psi 

requirement and the 7.0 psi state-level 

requirement would be a part of the 

maintenance plans as contingency 

measures for the NAAQS discussed 

above. The State is not seeking a change 

to the federal RVP requirements of 7.8 

psi that are applicable to the 

Birmingham Area. 

Alabama’s January 10, 2012, draft SIP 

revision includes an evaluation of the 

impact that the removal of the 7.0 psi 

state-level RVP requirement would have 

on the applicable NAAQS. For the 

purposes of this change, EPA is making 

the preliminary determination that the 

applicable NAAQS3 of interest for the 

noninterference demonstration required 

by section 110(l) of the CAA are the 

ozone, particulate matter and nitrogen 

oxides (NO2) standards because the RVP 

requirements results primarily in 

emissions benefits for VOCs and NOX. 

VOCs and NOX emissions are precursors 

for ozone and particulate matter, and 

NO2 is a component of NOX. There are 

no emissions reductions attributable to 

the emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), 

lead and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from RVP 

requirements. As a result, there is no 

information indicating the proposed 

revision would have any impact on 

those NAAQS. Additionally, the 

Birmingham Area is currently 

designated attainment for the CO, lead 

and SO2 NAAQS, and is continuing to 

attain these standards. Therefore, the 

analysis below focuses on the impact of 

Alabama’s changes to the RVP 

requirements on the ozone, particulate 

matter and NO2 NAAQS. 

a. Overall Preliminary Conclusions for 

Non-Interference Analyses for 

Alabama’s RVP Change 

In Alabama’s January 10, 2012, draft 

SIP revision, the State provided a 

technical demonstration to support the 

request to move Alabama’s 7.0 psi RVP 

requirement from the active measures 

portions of the Alabama SIP to the 

contingency measures portions of the 

affected maintenance plans. In that 

technical demonstration, Alabama 

provided information regarding the 

emissions trends from the maintenance 

plans for the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 

To determine these emissions, Alabama 

took a conservative approach and 

assumed a high ozone season RVP 

requirement for the Birmingham Area of 

9.0 psi in the ozone maintenance plan 

and 7.8 psi in the maintenance plans for 

the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. All of these maintenance 

plans, which included modeling, 

indicated future emissions projections 

under the baseline ‘‘attainment’’ level 

emissions without the emissions 

reductions associated with the statelevel 7.0 psi RVP requirements. 

In Alabama’s January 10, 2012, draft 

SIP revision, ADEM also provided an 

updated analysis utilizing the Motor 

Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 

modeling to evaluate the potential 

impacts for the ozone NAAQS that 

might result exclusively from changing 

the high ozone season RVP 

requirements from the state-level 

requirement of 7.0 psi to the federal 

requirement of 7.8 psi. Specifically, 

ADEM compared what the projected 

emissions in the year 2012 (the year the 

program is requested to be rescinded), 

would be, assuming a RVP level of 7.0 

psi and 7.8 psi. The comparison 

revealed a slight increase in emissions 

of 25 tons for NOX and 60 tons for VOC 

(cumulative over the entire season) 

would result from the change to the 

federal requirement from June 1st 

through September 15th. While the 

modeling showed a slight increase in 

NOX and VOC emissions resulting from 

the use of 7.8 psi RVP as opposed to 7.0 

psi, the most appropriate analysis for 

purposes of evaluating non-interference 

is whether total area emissions in the 

future years would remain at or below 

the level determined to be consistent 

with maintenance of the NAAQS. To 

provide this full evaluation, the State 

compared emissions generated for the 

year 2011, using a RVP of 7.0 psi to 

emissions generated for the years 2012 

and 2015, using a RVP of 7.8 psi. Table 

1 below provides the results of this 

analysis. 

TABLE 1—COMPARATIVE EMISSIONS

FOR CHANGE TO RVP 

2011 7.0 

psi RVP 

(tons) 

2012 7.8 

psi RVP 

(tons) 

2015 7.8 

psi RVP 

(tons) 

NOX ...... * 6511 * 5819 * 4429 

VOC ...... * 2764 * 2593 * 2081 

* Emissions are total from June 1 through 

September 15. 

As Table 1 clearly indicates, NOX and 

VOC emissions in the Birmingham Area 

will continue to decrease, even with the 

increase in high ozone season fuel RVP 

to 7.8 psi. The slight increase in 

emissions is being mitigated area-wide 

by a steady decrease in tailpipe 

emissions, which is the result of cleaner 

new vehicle fleet replacing the older 

fleet. As discussed below, based on this 

data, together with air quality data, and 

maintenance demonstrations and 

attainment designations for the NAAQS, 

EPA is making the preliminary 

determination that the slight increase in 

NOX and VOC emissions resulting from 

this change will not interfere with the 

Area’s ability to attain and maintain the 

NAAQS, or any other applicable 

requirement. More details on the 

individual non-interference analyses for 

the ozone, PM2.5 and NO2 NAAQS are 

provided below. 

b. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Ozone NAAQS 

Effective June 15, 2004, the 

Birmingham Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13059 

4The air quality design value for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS is the 3-year average of the annual 

4th highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentration. The level of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS is 0.08 parts per million (ppm). The 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is not met when the design 

value is greater than 0.08 ppm (0.085 ppm rounds 

up). 

5 Indeed, the future decreases in the inventory are 

an order of magnitude greater than the increases 

associated with the change in RVP. 

ozone NAAQS. The primary precursors 

for ozone are VOCs and NOX emissions. 

As a previous 1-hour ozone 

nonattainment area, the Birmingham 

Area was already subject to the federal 

RVP requirements for high ozone season 

gasoline, and as mentioned above, the 

State opted to implement a state-level 

RVP requirement for high ozone season 

gasoline to aid the Area with 

compliance with the ozone NAAQS. 

Although originally implemented for 

the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, these federal 

and state RVP requirements continued 

to apply to the Birmingham Area for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and are still 

applicable for the Birmingham Area. 

On January 27, 2006, ADEM 

submitted a redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. As part of the State’s 

ozone maintenance plan, Alabama took 

a conservative approach to projecting its 

emissions inventories for the future 

projection years of 2009, 2015 and 2017 

by assuming a level of 9.0 psi for RVP 

for high ozone season gasoline in the 

Birmingham Area. The intent of this 

conservative approach to developing the 

future projection year emissions was to 

demonstrate that the Birmingham Area 

could maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard without relying on the 7.0 psi 

state-level requirement for RVP in high 

ozone season gasoline. ADEM used the 

MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions 

model to estimate the emissions. In the 

years 2015 and 2017, ADEM projected a 

reduction from the 2002 base year 

inventory of approximately 45 percent 

in NOX emissions (in tons per summer 

day). The projected reduction of VOC 

emissions (in tons per summer day) for 

the years 2015 and 2017 is 

approximately a 20 percent from the 

2002 base year emissions inventory. 

There is an overall downward trend 

in ozone concentration in the 

Birmingham Area that can be attributed 

to regional and local programs/controls 

enacted in the Birmingham Area that 

have led to significant emissions 

reductions. On May 12, 2006 (71 FR 

27631), EPA approved Alabama’s 1997 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

Birmingham Area and redesignated the 

Area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The Birmingham Area is 

continuing to meet the 1-hour and 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS,4 and is meeting 

the new 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

based on the 2008–2010 design value of 

75 parts per billion (ppb). The 2008 

ozone NAAQS is met when the annual 

fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average concentration, averaged over 3 

years is 75 ppb or less. Based on 

preliminary monitoring data from 2009– 

2011, the Birmingham Area is 

continuing to meet the 2008 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. More detail on the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS is provided 

below. 

EPA established a more stringent 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb on March 

12, 2008. The Agency is currently in the 

process of determining areas’ 

compliance with the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, and has not yet completed the 

formal designation process. However, 

on December 9, 2011, EPA announced 

its preliminary intention regarding 

designations for nonattainment areas for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA did 

not indicate the Birmingham Area as a 

potential nonattainment area for the 

2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. As stated 

above, although the Agency has not yet 

completed the designation process, EPA 

must still consider compliance with 

section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA, 

therefore, evaluated whether or not 

Alabama’s requested change to its RVP 

requirements would interfere with 

attainment or maintenance of the 2008 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. In doing so, EPA 

reviewed current monitoring data, 

which suggest that the Birmingham 

Area appears to be attaining the 2008 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. The current design 

value for ozone for the Birmingham 

Area is 2008–2010 is 75ppb, while the 

preliminary 2009–2011 design value is 

75 ppb for this Area. EPA also evaluated 

the potential increase in the VOC and 

NOX precursor emissions, and whether 

it is reasonable to conclude that the 

requested change to Alabama’s high 

ozone season RVP requirement (which 

would have the effect in the Area of 

reverting to the federal RVP requirement 

for high ozone season fuel) would cause 

the Area to be out of compliance with 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

In light of the current designations, 

monitoring data and the submitted 

modeling, including the fact that the 

VOC and NOX emissions inventories are 

projected to continue to significantly 

decrease,5 EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Alabama’s change to its 

RVP requirements for the Birmingham 

Area will not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS. 

c. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

Particulate Matter NAAQS 

Effective April 5, 2005, the 

Birmingham Area was designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5

Annual NAAQS. The primary 

precursors for PM2.5 are NOX and sulfur 

oxides. VOC and ammonia can be 

determined to be precursors to PM2.5

formation on a case-by-case basis. For 

the Birmingham Area, neither the State 

of Alabama or EPA have made a 

determination that VOC and ammonia 

are significant precursors to the 

formation of PM2.5 in the Birmingham 

Area thus NOX and sulfur oxides are the 

precursors of interests in addition to 

direct PM2.5 emissions. In 2005 ADEM 

and Jefferson County Department of 

Health contracted with Envair to study 

the nature and potential causes of PM2.5

concentrations in the Birmingham Area. 

The study investigated the sources of 

particulate matter pollution in and 

around the North Birmingham and 

Wylam monitors. The study gave insight 

into the sources of particulate matter 

pollution in and around the North 

Birmingham and Wylam monitors. 

According to the findings of the study, 

sulfate and primary organic matter are 

the most important contributors to PM2.5

in the Birmingham Area. The results of 

the study indicate that the most 

effective control strategies to reduce 

PM2.5 concentrations in the Birmingham 

area include the reduction of regional 

and urban/local emissions of SO2. As 

mentioned earlier in this rulemaking, 

the RVP requirements result in 

emissions benefits for VOC and NOX so 

EPA focused on these precursors for the 

analysis of the potential impact of 

Alabama’s SIP change. 

On May 13, 2009, ADEM submitted a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Annual 

standards. As part of the State’s 1997 

Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan, 

Alabama took a conservative approach 

for developing its emissions inventory 

for the future projection years of 2009, 

2015 and 2017 by assuming a level of 

7.8 psi for RVP for high ozone season 

gasoline in the Birmingham Area. The 

intent of this conservative approach to 

developing the future projection year 

emissions was to demonstrate that the 

Birmingham Area could maintain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 standard without 

relying on the 7.0 psi state-level 

requirement for RVP in high ozone 

season gasoline. ADEM originally used 

the MOBILE6.2 mobile source emissions 

model to estimate the emissions but 

later updated these emissions with the 

MOVES mobile source emissions model. 

As discussed earlier the most effective 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
13060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

way to reduce PM2.5 concentrations in 

the Birmingham area is to control SO2

emissions. The projected reduction of 

SO2 emissions (in tons per day) for the 

years 2012, 2015, 2018, 2021 and 2024 

is approximately 58 percent from the 

2009 base year emissions inventory. As 

Table 2 indicates the PM2.5 annual 

design value has been decreasing. The 

overall downward trend in PM2.5

concentration in the Birmingham area 

can be attributed to regional and local 

programs/controls enacted in the 

Birmingham area that have led to 

significant emission reductions. 

TABLE 2—PM2.5 ANNUAL DESIGN VALUES

Year 2005–2007 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 

Design Value * ................................................................................. 18.7 17.3 15.1 13.7 

* The air quality design value for the PM2.5 1997 annual standard is 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). 

On June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38023), EPA 

made a determination that the 

Birmingham PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

standard and on November 10, 2011 (76 

FR 70078), EPA proposed to approve 

Alabama’s 1997 Annual PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Birmingham 

Area and redesignate the Area to 

attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5

NAAQS. EPA did not receive any 

comments on the proposed rulemaking 

to redesignate this Area to attainment 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standards. 

On June 17, 2010, ADEM submitted a 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. As part of the State’s 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 maintenance plan, 

Alabama took a conservative approach 

for developing its emissions inventory 

for the future projection years of 2012, 

2015, 2018, 2021 and 2024 by assuming 

a level of 7.8 psi for RVP for high ozone 

season gasoline in the Birmingham 

Area. The intent of this conservative 

approach to developing the future 

projection year emissions was to 

demonstrate that the Birmingham Area 

could maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards without relying on the 7.0 psi 

state-level requirement for RVP in high 

ozone season gasoline. ADEM used the 

MOVES mobile source emissions model 

to estimate the emissions. As Table 3 

indicates the PM2.5 24-hour design value 

has been decreasing. The overall 

downward trend in PM2.5 concentration 

in the Birmingham Area can be 

attributed to regional and local 

programs/controls enacted in the 

Birmingham Area that have led to 

significant emission reductions. 

TABLE 3—PM2.5 24-HOUR DESIGN VALUES

Year 2005–2007 2006–2008 2007–2009 2008–2010 

Design Value ................................................................................... 44 39 34 29 

On September 20, 2010 (75 FR 57186), 

EPA made a determination that the 

Birmingham PM2.5 nonattainment area 

has attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standard and on November 10, 2011 (76 

FR 70091), EPA proposed to approve 

Alabama’s 2006 24-hour PM2.5

maintenance plan for the Birmingham 

Area and redesignate the Area to 

attainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. EPA did not receive any 

comments on the proposed rulemaking 

to redesignate this Area to attainment 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

In light of the proposed designation, 

monitoring data and the submitted 

modeling, including the fact that the 

VOC and NOX emissions inventories are 

projected to continue to significantly 

decrease, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Alabama’s change to its 

RVP requirements for the Birmingham 

Area will not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of the 1997 PM2.5

annual or the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards. 

d. Non-Interference Analysis for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS 

On January 20, 2012, EPA finalized 

designations for 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

Alabama was designated unclassifiable/ 

attainment, including the Birmingham 

Area, for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. Also, 

EPA evaluated the potential increase in 

the NOX emissions (approximately a 

quarter of a ton per day between June 

1st and September 15th) and whether it 

is reasonable to believe that Alabama’s 

change for its high ozone season RVP 

requirement (which has the effect of 

reverting the Area to the federal RVP 

requirement for high ozone season fuel) 

would cause the Area to be out of 

compliance with the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

The slight increase in NOX emissions is 

being mitigated by a steady decrease in 

tailpipe emissions, which is the result of 

cleaner new vehicle fleet replacing the 

older fleet. In light of the current 

designation, monitoring data and the 

submitted modeling, including the fact 

that NOX emissions inventories are 

projected to continue to significantly 

decrease, EPA has preliminarily 

determined that Alabama’s change to its 

RVP requirements for the Birmingham 

Area will not interfere with the 

continued decline in NOX emissions, 

nor with attainment or maintenance of 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Alabama’s January 10, 2012, SIP 

revision regarding the State’s regulation 

at Chapter 335–3–20 ‘‘Control of Fuels’’ 

which identifies Alabama’s 7.0 psi 

requirement for the low-RVP fuel 

program in the Birmingham Area (i.e., 

Jefferson and Shelby Counties). 

Specifically, Alabama’s January 10, 

2012, proposed SIP revision moves the 

State’s 7.0 psi requirement for low-RVP 

fuel program in the Birmingham Area 

from the active measures portion to the 

contingency measures portions of the 

maintenance plans for ozone standards, 

the annual 1997 PM2.5 standard and the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard. This 

action, if finalized, would result in 

applicability of the federal RVP 

requirement of 7.8 psi for the 

Birmingham Area. 

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, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 43 / Monday, March 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 13061 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements and Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5266 Filed 3–2–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2011–0174; FRL–9642–2] 

Electronic Reporting of Toxics Release 

Inventory Data 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Facilities that currently report 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data to 

the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) use either paper reporting 

forms or the online reporting software 

application known as the Toxics Release 

Inventory-Made Easy Web or simply 

TRI-MEweb. Effective January 1, 2013, 

EPA proposes to require facilities to 

report non-confidential TRI data to EPA 

using electronic software provided by 

the Agency. The only exception to this 

electronic reporting requirement would 

be for the few facilities that submit trade 

secret TRI information (including 

sanitized and unsanitized information), 

who would continue to submit their 

trade secret reporting forms and 

substantiation forms in hard copy. As of 

Reporting Year (RY) 2010, 

approximately 95 percent of TRI 

reporting facilities were using TRIMEweb, making it possible for the 

Agency to process and expedite the 

release of TRI data to the public. 

Under this rulemaking, EPA would 

also require facilities to submit 

electronically (i.e., not on paper forms 

or CD–ROMs) any revisions or 

withdrawals of previously submitted 

TRI data. For trade secret submissions, 

EPA would still accept revisions or 

withdrawals of previously submitted 

trade secret information on paper forms. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 4, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

TRI–2011–0174, by one of the following 

methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: oei.docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: OEI Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 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–HQ–TRI–2011– 

0174. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 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 

for which disclosure is restricted by 

statute. Certain other materials, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center 

Public Reading Room is open from 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1