63736 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This rule meets applicable standards 

in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

10. Protection of Children 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 

an economically significant rule and 

does not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that may 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under Executive Order 

13175, Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments, 

because it does not have a substantial 

direct effect on one or more Indian 

tribes, on the relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

12. Energy Effects 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under Executive Order 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule 

involves establishing a temporary 

security zone. Under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction, an 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

not required for this rule because it 

concerns an emergency situation of less 

than 1 week in duration. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 subpart C as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T05–0931 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T05–0931 Security Zone; James 

River, Kingsmill Resort, Williamsburg, VA. 

(a) Regulated area. The following area 

is a security zone: All navigable waters 

of the James River within a 1000 yard 

radius of approximate position 

37°13′23′′ N/76°40′03′′ W (NAD 1983) in 

the vicinity of Kingsmill Resort Marina, 

in Williamsburg, VA. 

(b) Definition. For purposes of 

enforcement of this section, Captain of 

the Port Representative means any U.S. 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf. 

(c) Regulation. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.33 of 

this part, entry into this security zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section is prohibited unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia, or the Captain of the 

Port Representative. 

(2) The operator of any vessel granted 

permission to enter this security zone 

must: 

(i) Stop the vessel immediately upon 

being directed to do so by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a U.S. 

Coast Guard Ensign; and 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a U.S. 

Coast Guard Ensign. 

(3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton 

Roads, Virginia can be contacted at 

telephone number (757) 638–6637. 

(4) U.S. Coast Guard vessels enforcing 

the security zone can be contacted on 

VHF–FM marine band radio, channel 13 

(156.65 MHz) and channel 16 (156.8 

MHz). 

(d) Enforcement period. This section 

will be enforced from 11:59 p.m. on 

October 12, 2012 to 12:01 p.m. on 

October 17, 2012. 

Dated: October 5, 2012. 

John K. Little, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Hampton Roads. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25535 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0388; FRL–9738–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is granting full approval 

of revisions to the West Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the State of West Virginia through 

the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (WVDEP) on 

August 31, 2011, with the exception of 

the narrow issue of the requirement to 

include condensable emissions of 

particulate matter (condensables) in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

in the State’s Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) program. These 

revisions pertaining to West Virginia’s 

PSD program incorporate 

preconstruction permitting regulations 

for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) into the West 

Virginia SIP. In light of a comment 

received on the July 31, 2012 proposed 

rule, EPA is reviewing West Virginia 

State Rule 45CSR14 to determine the 

extent to which its definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ satisfies the 

corresponding Federal definition, and 

will address this issue in a separate 

action. In addition, EPA is granting full 

approval of the PSD portions of other 

related infrastructure submissions 

required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

which are necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5

and ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and 

ozone NAAQS, with the exception of 

the narrow issue of the requirement to 

include condensables in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ EPA will 

address this issue in a separate action. 

EPA is granting approval of these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63737 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

November 16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0388. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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 West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 31, 2012 (77 FR 45302), EPA 

proposed approval of amendments to 

the PSD permitting regulations under 

West Virginia State Rule 45CSR14, 

Permits for Construction and Major 

Modification of Major Stationary 

Sources of Air Pollution for the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration, 

submitted by the WVDEP as a SIP 

revision on August 31, 2011. The 

August 31, 2011 SIP revision submitted 

by West Virginia generally pertains to 

two Federal rulemaking actions. The 

first is the ‘‘Implementation of the New 

Source Review (NSR) Program for 

Particulate Matter less than 2.5 

Micrometers (PM2.5)’’ (NSR PM2.5 Rule), 

which was promulgated on May 16, 

2008 (73 FR 28321). The second is the 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule’’ (Tailoring Rule), which was 

promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 

31514). In addition to the August 31, 

2011 SIP submission, EPA also 

proposed to approve those portions of 

previous SIP submissions from WVDEP 

which address the PSD-related 

requirements set forth in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 lead NAAQS, 

and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as well as 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) for the 

2008 lead NAAQS and 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. These previous SIP 

submissions, submitted by West 

Virginia to satisfy the PSD-related 

provisions found in CAA section 

110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure 

SIP submissions. All of these State 

submittals, as well as technical support 

documents (TSDs) in support of the 

proposed and final actions are included 

in the docket. The July 31, 2012 notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NPR) and its 

supporting TSD contain detailed 

discussions of the West Virginia SIP 

submissions, their relationship to the 

CAA and the Federal regulatory PSD SIP 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51.166 

applicable as of the time of the August 

31, 2011 submittal, as well as the PSDrelated infrastructure requirements in 

CAA section 110(a)(2), and EPA’s 

rationale for its proposed action; 

therefore, those discussions will not be 

restated here. A summary of the 

comments received and EPA’s responses 

are provided in Section II of this 

document. 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

EPA received comments on the July 

31, 2012 proposal to approve West 

Virginia’s revisions to its SIP’s PSD 

permitting requirements and to approve 

portions of infrastructure submissions 

relating to West Virginia’s PSD permit 

program. The portions of the 

infrastructure submittals at issue relate 

to the PSD requirements of CAA 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) for 

the 2008 lead NAAQS and the 2008 

ozone NAAQS, and CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, 1997 ozone NAAQS, and the 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of 

those comments and EPA’s responses 

are as follows: 

Comment: A commenter raises issues 

regarding the current economy in the 

State of West Virginia and contends that 

Federal air pollution requirements 

imposed since the 1970s have resulted 

in the economic decline in the Northern 

Panhandle. 

Response: EPA thanks the commenter 

for the submittal. For purposes of 

background, EPA is acting on SIP 

submissions that reflect State law in 

effect at the time of the submittals. The 

commenter has not raised any specific 

issue relating to the proposed approval 

of West Virginia’s SIP submittals at 

issue in this rulemaking process. Nor 

has the commenter given any indication 

of what action they would prefer EPA to 

take on West Virginia’s SIP submittals. 

Therefore, EPA views this comment as 

being not relevant to EPA’s proposed 

action and EPA does not have any 

obligation to respond to this general and 

unrelated comment. See Sherley v. 

Sebellius, 776 F. Supp. 2d 1, 53–54 

(D.D.C. 2011) (stating Federal agency 

must only respond to significant 

comments relevant to an agency’s 

decision); Conference of State Bank 

Supervisors v. Office of Thrift 

Supervision, 792 F. Supp. 837, 846 

(D.D.C. 1992) (finding agencies need 

only respond to significant comments 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act). 

Comment: EPA cannot approve the 

infrastructure SIPs because the 

significant emissions rates in the SIP 

and other de minimis exceptions are 

arbitrary and capricious with regard to 

the 2008 ozone and lead NAAQS. 

EPA’s Response: EPA disagrees with 

the commenter that we cannot approve 

the infrastructure SIPs because the 

significant emissions rates and other de 

minimis exceptions are arbitrary and 

capricious. The purpose of this 

rulemaking is to take action on West 

Virginia’s SIP revision submittals based 

upon their consistency with Federal 

regulations. The significant emissions 

applicability levels of 0.6 tons per year 

(TPY) for lead and 40 tons TPY for 

VOCs and for NOX required by West 

Virginia’s PSD permitting regulations 

mirror the Federal requirements found 

at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i). West Virginia’s proposed 

SIP revision satisfies the obligation that 

its SIP’s PSD regulation meet 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i). In fact, West Virginia’s 

regulatory language mirrors the Federal 

counterpart language. Therefore, EPA 

has no basis to disapprove West 

Virginia’s regulatory language and 

require West Virginia to meet an 

alternative standard which EPA has not 

established through the required 

administrative rulemaking process. 

West Virginia is not required to revise 

the significant emissions rates in 

question unless and until EPA revises 

the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(23)(i) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(23)(i). For these reasons, EPA 

disagrees with the commenter’s 

assertion that the significant emissions 

applicability thresholds in the West 

Virginia SIP’s PSD regulation are 

arbitrary and capricious with regard to 

the 2008 ozone and lead NAAQS. 

Comment: One commenter objects to 

the EPA’s proposed approval of the 

State’s infrastructure SIP submissions 

for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and the 

1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone and the 

2008 lead NAAQS on the grounds that 

‘‘EPA has promulgated increments for 

PM2.5. See 75 FR 64,864 (Oct. 20, 2010). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
63738 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1The commenter is referring to a separate 

rulemaking action by EPA: ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate 

Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)— 

Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and 

Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC),’’ 75 

FR 64864 (Oct. 20, 2010). This collateral rulemaking 

concerned various issues relevant to PM2.5 and PSD, 

including increments, significant impact levels, and 

a significant monitoring concentration. This rule 

will be referred to herein as the ‘‘2010 PM2.5 NSR/ 

PSD Rule.’’ 

2Although the notice was published by the 

Federal Register on July 31, 2012, the notice was 

signed by the Regional Administrator on July 18, 

2012, before the statutory deadline for submission 

of the SIP revision addressing the PM2.5 increments. 

3The commenter cites to a rulemaking in Region 

5 wherein EPA proposed to narrowly disapprove a 

Michigan SIP to the extent that it failed to address 

the requirement to account for PM2.5 precursors in 

the State’s PSD program. That rulemaking, however, 

addressed requirements from the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule for which the deadline for 

States to revise their SIPs had passed more than a 

year prior at the time of proposal. See 77 Fed. Reg. 

45,992 (Aug. 2, 2012). In this case, the deadline for 

West Virginia to revise its SIP to address PM2.5

increments had not passed at the time of proposal. 

However, the proposed West Virginia 

SIP does not include these increments 

even though the increments became 

applicable on October 12, 2011 * * *. 

Therefore EPA cannot approve the West 

Virginia Infrastructure SIP regarding the 

PSD elements for PM2.5.’’ 1 The 

commenter argues that ‘‘(s)tates are 

required to include these increments in 

their SIPs before EPA can fully-approve 

an infrastructure submission.’’ However, 

the commenter also acknowledges that 

the States had until July 20, 2012 to 

amend their SIPs to address the PM2.5

increments required by the 

requirements of the 2010 PM2.5 NSR/ 

PSD Rule. With respect to this July 20, 

2012 deadline, the commenter asserts 

that because the proposed rule at issue 

was published in the Federal Register 

on July 31, 2012, the proposed rule was 

published after the deadline by which 

States were required to submit SIP 

revisions in compliance with the 2010 

PM2.5 NSR/PSD Rule. Therefore, as of 

the date that the proposed rule was 

published in the Federal Register (July 

31, 2012), the PM2.5 increments were 

required to be included in West 

Virginia’s SIP in order for West Virginia 

to meet the PSD requirements of 

sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of 

the CAA. 

In addition to the above assertions, 

the commenter sets forth three reasons 

why EPA should not approve the 

specific CAA 110(a)(2) SIPs without first 

ensuring that West Virginia’s SIP 

includes the PM2.5 increments set forth 

at 40 CFR § 51.166(c): (1) EPA should 

not allow proposed major sources in 

West Virginia ‘‘to avoid PSD 

requirements like PM2.5 increments, 

while proposed major sources in other 

states * * * have to comply with this 

requirement’’; (2) because EPA has 

proposed approval of the PSD 

requirements of CAA 110(a)(2) for the 

2008 ozone and lead NAAQS, EPA will 

not have another opportunity to ‘‘revisit 

this issue of lack of PM2.5 increments’’; 

and (3) because emissions of PM2.5 and 

its precursors have negative effects on 

public health and welfare, EPA’s full 

approval of West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIPs ‘‘would cause 

innocent people to be killed by illegal 

PM2.5 emissions.’’ The commenter 

concludes by stating that: ‘‘EPA must 

disapprove the PSD elements of the 

Infrastructure SIPs for failure to include 

the PM2.5 increments. In the alternative, 

EPA could grant a conditional approval 

if West Virginia agrees to adopt the 

PM2.5 increments into its SIP within one 

year.’’ 

Response: EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that we cannot approve this 

SIP submission without inclusion of 

increments. The commenter asserts that 

the EPA should now disapprove the 

West Virginia infrastructure SIP 

because, since the date of EPA’s 

proposal, the deadline for the 

submission of a SIP revision addressing 

the PM2.5 increments has passed. 

However, pursuant to the 2010 PM2.5

NSR/PSD Rule and CAA section 166(b), 

States were not required to submit a 

revised SIP addressing the PM2.5

increments until July 20, 2012. EPA 

proposed action on the West Virginia 

infrastructure SIP in a notice signed on 

July 18, 2012.2 Therefore, on the date 

that the proposed rule was signed by the 

Regional Administrator, the PM2.5

increments were not required to be 

included in the West Virginia SIP in 

order for West Virginia to meet the PSD 

requirements of CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J) of the Act.3

The commenter’s concerns relate to 

the timing of EPA action on collateral, 

yet related, SIP submissions. These 

concerns highlight an important 

overarching question that the EPA has 

to confront when assessing the various 

infrastructure SIP submittals addressed 

in the proposed rule: how to proceed 

when the timing and sequencing of 

multiple related SIP submissions impact 

the ability of the State and the EPA to 

address certain substantive issues in the 

infrastructure SIP submission in a 

reasonable fashion. 

It is appropriate for the EPA to take 

into consideration the timing and 

sequence of related SIP submissions as 

part of determining what it is reasonable 

to expect a State to have addressed in 

an infrastructure SIP submission for a 

NAAQS at the time when the EPA acts 

on such submission. The EPA has 

historically interpreted section 

110(a)(2)(C), section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 

and section 110(a)(2)(J) to require the 

EPA to assess a State’s infrastructure SIP 

submission with respect to the thenapplicable and Federally enforceable 

PSD regulations required to be included 

in a State’s SIP at the time EPA takes 

action on the SIP. However, the EPA 

does not consider it reasonable to 

interpret section 110(a)(2)(C), section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and section 

110(a)(2)(J) to require the EPA to 

propose to disapprove a State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions because 

the State had not yet, at the time of 

proposal, made a submission that was 

not yet due for the 2010 PM2.5 NSR/PSD 

Rule. To adopt a different approach by 

which the EPA could not act on an 

infrastructure SIP, or at least could not 

approve an infrastructure SIP, whenever 

there was any impending revision to the 

SIP required by another collateral 

rulemaking action would result in 

regulatory gridlock and make it 

impracticable or impossible for EPA to 

act on infrastructure SIPs if EPA is in 

the process of revising collateral PSD 

regulations. The EPA believes that such 

an outcome would be an unreasonable 

reading of the statutory process for the 

infrastructure SIPs contemplated in 

section 110(a)(1) and (2). 

The EPA acknowledges that it is 

important that these additional PSD 

program revisions be evaluated and 

approved into the State’s SIP in 

accordance with the CAA. In fact, West 

Virginia made the submission required 

by the 2010 PM2.5 NSR/PSD Rule on 

June 12, 2010, and the EPA therefore 

intends to address the PM2.5 increments 

in a subsequent rulemaking. EPA also 

acknowledges the commenter’s concern 

about the potential for sources not being 

evaluated with respect to increments 

during the interim period while new 

PSD program revisions are being 

evaluated. However, EPA notes that it is 

implicit in the SIP processing 

procedures under CAA section 110(k) 

and the timing of notice and comment 

rulemaking that there will often be 

interim periods during which a State 

has adopted and submitted a new State 

law requirement in order to meet a CAA 

requirement, but the EPA will not yet 

have acted upon it to make it a 

Federally enforceable part of the State’s 

SIP. 

Moreover, major sources in West 

Virginia are subject to the PM2.5

increments pursuant to the version of 

the regulation, 45CSR14, currently in 

effect in West Virginia. Because the 

regulations relating to PM2.5 increments 

are currently effective and enforceable 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63739 

as a matter of State law, as of June 1, 

2012, the EPA in the interim believes 

that proposed major sources in West 

Virginia are being required as a matter 

of State law to comply with the PSD 

requirements like PM2.5 increments and 

thus that these sources are not being 

treated differently under State law than 

similar sources in other States that have 

approved SIP revisions that include the 

increments. The only distinction 

between West Virginia and the other 

States identified by the commenter is 

that those other States submitted their 

SIP revisions addressing the PM2.5

increments far enough in advance of 

EPA’s action on the States’ 

infrastructure SIPs to begin the 

administrative rulemaking process for 

such SIP revisions. Thus, the EPA does 

not believe that approving the State’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions at this 

time will lead to major sources in West 

Virginia being treated differently than 

similar sources in the other States as a 

factual matter. If the commenter 

determines that sources are not being 

evaluated in accordance with applicable 

State law requirements during the 

interim before EPA acts on a later SIP 

submission, those concerns can be 

addressed in the State’s permitting 

process. 

The EPA shares the commenter’s 

concerns that emissions of PM2.5 and its 

precursors have negative effects on 

public health and welfare. However, 

EPA has no basis on which to find that 

EPA’s approval of West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIPs ‘‘would cause 

innocent people to be killed by illegal 

PM2.5 emissions.’’ As explained above, 

the State is addressing PM2.5 increments 

in the version of 45CSR14 currently 

adopted pursuant to State regulatory 

requirements. West Virginia made the 

SIP submission required by the 2010 

PM2.5 NSR/PSD Rule to reflect that its 

PSD permitting program now includes 

PM2.5 increments as required by the 

2010 PM2.5 NSR/PSD Rule. EPA will be 

acting on that submission in a separate 

rulemaking action in accordance with 

section 110(k). Until such time as EPA 

evaluates West Virginia’s submission 

and takes the necessary rulemaking 

actions, EPA notes the fact that the 

revisions have been made and are 

currently enforceable for purposes of 

State law. 

Finally, EPA has considered the 

suggestion that, rather than approving 

the State’s infrastructure SIPs, the EPA 

‘‘could grant a conditional approval’’ of 

the infrastructure SIPs if West Virginia 

agrees to adopt the PM2.5 increments as 

required by the 2010 PM2.5 NSR/PSD 

Rule into its SIP within one year. 

The EPA interprets the commenter’s 

suggestion that EPA grant ‘‘conditional 

approval’’ of the State’s infrastructure 

SIP submissions to be a reference to the 

concept of conditional approval under 

section 110(k)(4). The EPA considered 

the commenter’s suggestion as a means 

of addressing the SIP submission timing 

issue, but EPA is constrained by the 

provisions of the statute. Section 

110(k)(4), under the rubric of 

‘‘conditional approval,’’ explicitly 

authorizes EPA to approve a SIP 

submission ‘‘based on a commitment of 

the State to adopt specific enforceable 

measures by a date certain, but not later 

than 1 year after the date of approval of 

the plan revision.’’ Courts have 

confirmed that conditional approvals 

are an available course of action under 

section 110(k), but only if the statutory 

conditions for such conditional 

approvals can be met. 

Based on the specific language of 

section 110(k)(4), EPA concludes that it 

would not be appropriate to use the 

mechanism of a conditional approval in 

this action on the West Virginia PSDrelated infrastructure SIP submissions. 

The statute clearly contemplates use of 

this approach when a State has made a 

commitment to make a submission in 

the future that meets the statutory 

criteria. In this instance, however, on 

June 12, 2012, West Virginia submitted 

the SIP revision required by the 2010 

PM2.5 NSR/PSD Rule. Therefore, the 

EPA does not believe that it is 

appropriate to use the mechanism of a 

conditional approval in these 

circumstances. 

Comment: EPA cannot approve the 

infrastructure SIPs because West 

Virginia’s SIP does not clearly regulate 

condensable direct PM2.5.

Response: The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule 

changed the Federal definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ found at 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) to require that 

States account for condensable 

emissions of particulate matter 

(condensables) in issuing NSR permits. 

In light of this comment, EPA is 

reviewing West Virginia State Rule 

45CSR14 to determine the extent to 

which its definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ satisfies the requirements of 

section 51.166(b)(49)(vi) insofar as it 

applies to particulate matter. For this 

reason, EPA is deferring taking action 

on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in section 2.66 of West 

Virginia State Rule 45CSR14 with regard 

to the requirement to account for 

condensables. EPA will address this 

issue in a separate rulemaking action. 

III. Final Actions 

EPA is fully approving WVDEP’s 

August 31, 2011 submittal, except for 

the narrow issue of the requirement to 

include condensable emissions of 

particulate matter in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 

45CSR14 section 2.66. Except for this 

narrow issue, EPA is approving all other 

portions of the submittal, including but 

not limited to, the remainder of section 

2.66. In approving West Virginia State 

Rule 45CSR14 with regard to all other 

CAA and Federal regulatory SIP 

requirements for PSD applicable as of 

the August 31, 2011 SIP revision 

submission date, EPA is acknowledging 

that it meets the ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(Tailoring Rule), which was 

promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 

31514). EPA is also approving those 

portions of West Virginia’s SIP 

submissions dated December 3, 2007, 

December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, 

October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and 

February 17, 2012 which address the 

PSD-related requirements set forth in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 lead 

NAAQS, and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 

well as CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, except for the narrow 

issue of the requirement to include 

condensable emissions of particulate 

matter in the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 

section 2.66. 

EPA is not finalizing its proposed 

approval of WVDEP’s August 31, 2011 

submittal with respect to the narrow 

issue of the requirement to include 

condensable emissions of particulate 

matter in the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 

section 2.66. Additionally, EPA is not 

finalizing its proposed approval of 

WVDEP’s SIP submissions dated 

December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, 

April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 

26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 

submitted to meet the PSD-related 

infrastructure SIP obligations set forth at 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and 

(J) with respect to the narrow issue of 

the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

found at 45CSR14 section 2.66. EPA 

will address these issues in a separate 

action. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
63740 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements, except as noted in 

this document, and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this 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 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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by [Insert date 60 days from date 

of publication of this document in the 

Federal Register]. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final rule does not affect the finality 

of this action for the purposes of judicial 

review nor does it extend the time 

within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action on the West 

Virginia SIP PSD provisions may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 27, 2012. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, 

■ a. The table in paragraph (c) is 

amended by revising the entries for [45 

CSR] Series 14 regarding Permits for 

Construction and Major Modification of 

Major Stationary Sources of Air 

Pollution for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration. 

■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is 

amended by: 

i. Revising the entries regarding the 

Section 110(a)(2) PSD-related 

Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

2008 Lead NAAQS, and the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. 

ii. Adding at the end of the table an 

entry regarding the Section 110(a)(2) 

PSD-related Infrastructure Requirements 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 

2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SIP 

State citation [Chapter 

16–20 or 45 CSR ] Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 

52.2565 

*******

[45CSR] Series 14 Permits for Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of Air Pollution for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63741 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SIP—Continued 

State citation [Chapter 

16–20 or 45 CSR ] Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 

52.2565 

Section 45–14–1 ............ General ......................... 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–2 ............ Definitions ..................... 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

1. Inclusion of PM2.5 significant emissions rates 

and precursors and GHG provisions. 

2. Taking no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66. only as it relates to the requirement 

to include condensable emissions of particulate matter in that definition. See § 52.2522(i). 

Section 45–14–3 ............ Applicability ................... 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–4 ............ Ambient Air Quality Increments and Ceilings.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–5 ............ Area Classification ........ 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–6 ............ Prohibition of Dispersion 

Enhancement Techniques.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–7 ............ Registration, Report and 

Permit Requirements 

for Major Stationary 

Sources and Major 

Modifications.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–8 ............ Requirements Relating 

to Control Technology.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–9 ............ Requirements Relating 

to the Source’s Impact on Air Quality.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–10 .......... Modeling Requirements 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–11 .......... Air Quality Monitoring 

Requirements.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–12 .......... Additional Impacts Analysis Requirements.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–13 .......... Additional Requirements 

and Variances for 

Source Impacting 

Federal Class 1 

Areas.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–14 .......... Procedures for Sources 

Employing Innovative 

Control Technology.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–15 .......... Exclusions From Increment Consumption.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–16 .......... Specific Exemptions ..... 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–17 .......... Public Review Procedures.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–18 .......... Public Meetings ............ 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–19 .......... Permit Transfer, Cancellation and Responsibility.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–20 .......... Disposition of Permits ... 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
63742 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SIP—Continued 

State citation [Chapter 

16–20 or 45 CSR ] Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation/citation at 40 CFR 

52.2565 

Section 45–14–21 .......... Conflict with Other Permitting Rules.6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–25 .......... Actual PALs .................. 6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

Section 45–14–26 .......... Inconsistency Between 

Rules.

6/16/11 10/17/12 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

*******

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of 

non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide 12/3/07, 5/21/08 8/4/11, 76 FR, 47062 ......... This action addresses the following CAA elements 

or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

12/3/07, 12/11/07, 

8/31/11 

10/17/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), except taking 

no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66 only as it 

relates to the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in that definition. 

See § 52.2522(i). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide 4/3/08, 5/21/08, 

7/9/08, 3/18/10 

8/4/11, 76 FR, 47062 ......... This action addresses the following CAA elements 

or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

12/11/07, 4/3/08, 

8/31/11 

10/17/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), except taking 

no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66 only as it 

relates to the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in that definition. 

See § 52.2522(i). 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS.

Statewide 10/1/09, 3/18/10 8/4/11, 76 FR, 47062 ......... This action addresses the following CAA elements 

or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 

10/1/09, 8/31/11 10/17/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), except taking 

no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66 only as it 

relates to the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in that definition. 

See § 52.2522(i). 

* * * * * * * 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 

Lead NAAQS.

Statewide 10/26/11 9/10/12, 77 FR, 55417 ....... This action addresses the following CAA elements: 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), 

(K), (L), and (M), or portions thereof. 

8/31/11, 10/26/11 10/17/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Approval of the following elements or portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), except taking 

no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 2.66 only as it 

relates to the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in that definition. 

See § 52.2522(i). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 63743 

Name of 

non-regulatory 

SIP revision 

Applicable 

geographic 

area 

State 

submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8- 

Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Statewide 8/31/11, 2/17/12 10/17/12 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

Approval of the following PSD-related elements or 

portions thereof: 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J), 

except taking no action on the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 section 

2.66 only as it relates to the requirement to include condensable emissions of particulate matter 

in that definition. See § 52.2522(i). 

■ 3. In § 52.2522, paragraph (i) is added 

to read as follows. 

§ 52.2522 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(i)(1) EPA is fully approving WVDEP’s 

August 31, 2011 submittal, except for 

the narrow issue of the requirement to 

include condensable emissions of 

particulate matter in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 

45CSR14 section 2.66. Except for this 

narrow issue, EPA is approving all other 

portions of the submittal, including but 

not limited to, the remainder of section 

2.66. In approving West Virginia State 

Rule 45CSR14 with regard to all other 

CAA and Federal regulatory SIP 

requirements for PSD applicable as of 

the August 31, 2011 SIP revision 

submission date, EPA is acknowledging 

that it is consistent with the ‘‘Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration and Title V 

Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule’’ 

(Tailoring Rule), which was 

promulgated on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 

31514). EPA is not finalizing its 

proposed approval of WVDEP’s August 

31, 2011 submittal with respect to the 

narrow issue of the requirement to 

include condensable emissions of 

particulate matter in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ found at 

45CSR14 section 2.66. In light of a 

comment received on its July 31, 2012 

proposed rule (77 FR 45302), EPA is 

reviewing West Virginia State Rule 

45CSR14 to determine the extent to 

which its definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ satisfies the corresponding 

Federal definition, and will address this 

issue in a separate action. 

(2) EPA is also approving those 

portions of West Virginia’s SIP 

submissions dated December 3, 2007, 

December 11, 2007, April 3, 2008, 

October 1, 2009, October 26, 2011, and 

February 17, 2012 which address the 

PSD-related requirements set forth in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS, 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 2008 lead 

NAAQS, and 2008 ozone NAAQS, as 

well as CAA Section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) 

for the 2008 lead NAAQS and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, except for the narrow 

issue of the requirement to include 

condensable emissions of particulate 

matter in the definition of ‘‘regulated 

NSR pollutant’’ found at 45CSR14 

section 2.66. EPA is not finalizing its 

July 31, 2012 proposed approval (77 FR 

45302) of WVDEP’s SIP submissions 

dated December 3, 2007, December 11, 

2007, April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, 

October 26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 

submitted to meet the PSD-related 

infrastructure SIP obligations set forth at 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and 

(J) with respect to the narrow issue of 

the requirement to include condensable 

emissions of particulate matter in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ 

found at 45CSR14 section 2.66. EPA 

will address this issue in a separate 

action. 

[FR Doc. 2012–25386 Filed 10–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0754; FRL–9740–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern negative declarations 

for volatile organic compound (VOC) 

source categories for the SMAQMD. We 

are approving these negative 

declarations under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 17, 2012 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 16, 2012. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0754, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with