Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72719 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA 

approval 

date 

Comments 

*******

Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan, 

May 11, 2010 (see comments).

State-wide ........ 06/28/2010 11/26/2010 [Insert 

page number 

where the document begins] 

For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See 

docket EPA–R10–OAR–2010–0669. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29626 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0482; FRL–9231–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving numerous 

revisions to the Idaho State 

Implementation Plan that were 

submitted to EPA by the State of Idaho 

on May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13, 

2005, May 5, 2006, April 16, 2007, May 

12, 2008, and June 8, 2009. The 

revisions were submitted in accordance 

with the requirements of section 110 

and part D of the Clean Air Act 

(hereinafter the Act or CAA). EPA is 

taking no action in this rulemaking on 

a number of submitted rule revisions 

that are unrelated to the purposes of the 

implementation plan. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State’s SIP 

revision and other information 

supporting this action are available for 

inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101, or at (206) 553–6706. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background for This Action 

A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does 

this action address? 

B. What comments did we receive on our 

proposal for these revisions? 

1. Section 110(l) 

a. Summary of Comments Regarding 

Section 110(l) 

b. EPA Response to Section 110(l)-Related 

Comments 

2. Section 193 

a. Summary of Comments Regarding 

Section 193 

b. EPA Response to Section 193-Related 

Comments 

II. Final Action 

A. Rules To Approve Into the Idaho SIP 

B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken 

C. Scope of Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background for This Action 

Title I of the CAA, as amended by 

Congress in 1990, specifies the general 

requirements for states to submit State 

Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain 

and/or maintain the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and 

EPA’s actions regarding approval of 

those SIPs. On May 22, 2003, April 2, 

2004, July 13, 2005, May 5, 2006, April 

16, 2007, May 12, 2008, and June 8, 

2009, the Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ) 

submitted numerous revisions to the SIP 

for the State of Idaho. On March 18, 

2010, EPA solicited public comment on 

a proposal to approve all of the 

revisions submitted by IDEQ, except the 

identified provisions on which EPA 

proposed to take no action. 75 FR 

13058. This final action will update the 

federally approved SIP to reflect 

changes to the Rules for the Control of 

Air Pollution in Idaho (IDAPA 58.01.01) 

that were made by IDEQ and reviewed 

and deemed approvable into the Idaho 

SIP (Code of Federal Regulations part 

52, subpart N). 

A. What revisions to the Idaho SIP does 

this action address? 

Table 1 below identifies each SIP 

submittal addressed in this action, 

including the submittal date, title and 

sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 that are 

revised. The submittals include Idaho’s 

annual incorporation by reference of 

various portions of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), revised new source 

review (NSR) requirements, revised 

permit to construct exemptions, updates 

and clarifications to the State’s 

permitting program, revisions related to 

the definition of ‘‘regulated air 

pollutant,’’ modified definitions for the 

State’s major and minor source 

permitting programs, procedures for 

transferring permits, clarifications to 

sulfur content of fuels provisions, and 

various editorial changes. The 

submittals also included provisions we 

are taking no action on, including an 

electric generating unit construction 

prohibition, demonstration of 

preconstruction compliance with toxic 

standards, permit fee provisions, appeal 

provisions, provisions relating to Tier 1 

operating permits, facility emissions 

cap, standards of performance of certain 

types of waste incinerators, and various 

definition revisions. More information 

about each SIP submittal, including a 

summary of the submittal and relevant 

background information and analysis 

supporting our action, can be found in 

our proposed approval. 75 FR 13058 

(March 18, 2010). 

TABLE 1—IDEQ SIP SUBMITTALS ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION

Date of submittal Title (with IDEQ Docket No.) Sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 revised or amended 

05/22/2003 1 ......................... Soil Vapor Extraction (58–0101–0102) ........................... 58.01.01.210. 

2001 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0103) ........ 58.01.01.008 and 107. 

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (58– 

0101–0103).

58.01.01.861. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1NRDC notes that, ‘‘[t]he 2002 rule provisions 

considered by the DC Circuit in New York v. EPA 

were EPA regulations, not state ones. The court thus 

had no occasion to decide whether EPA could 

approve any state’s versions of any of the 2002 rule 

provisions consistently with section 110(1) of the 

Act.’’ NRDC Comments at 4. The Idaho rules at 

issue here track the federally approved rules, as 

upheld by the DC Circuit (which NRDC admits— 

NRDC Comments at 4–5) and NRDC supported all 

its comments with information related to the 

challenge of EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules. NRDC 

provided no Idaho-specific suppport for its 

comments. 

TABLE 1—IDEQ SIP SUBMITTALS ADDRESSED IN THIS ACTION—Continued 

Date of submittal Title (with IDEQ Docket No.) Sections of IDAPA 58.01.01 revised or amended 

Permit Clarification (58–0101–0202) ............................... 58.01.01.209, 213, 228, 313, 317, 395, 410, 511, 581, 

700 and 710–724. 

2002 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0202) ........ 58.01.01.008 and 107. 

Permitting Fees (58–0101–0104) .................................... 58.01.01.01.006, 007, 200–202, 209, 224–228, 400– 

402, 404, 407–410, 470, 800–802. 

Title V Operating Permit Fees (58–0101–0203) ............. 58.01.01.387–399. 

04/02/2004 ........................... 2003 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0301) ........ 58.01.01.008 and 107. 

07/13/2005 ........................... New Source Review (58–0101–0304) ............................ 58.01.01.006, 200, 202, 204, 205, 206, 209, 225 and 

401. 

Permit To Construct Exemptions (58–0101–0401) ......... 58.01.01.220 and 222. 

2004 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0402) ........ 58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204 and 205. 

05/05/2006 2 ......................... Regulated Air Pollutants (58–0101–0503) ...................... 58.01.01.006–008, 133–135, 155, 213, 220, 440–442, 

460, 511–513, 560–561, 575, 581, and 679. 

2005 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0505) ........ 58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204 and 205. 

Procedure for Transfer of Permit To Construct and Tier 

II permits (58–0101–0506).

58.01.01.006, 007, 209, and 404. 

Permit To Construct Exemptions (58–0101–0507) ......... 58.01.01.222. 

04/16/2007 ........................... 2006 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0602) ........ 58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204, 205. 

Mercury (58–0101–0603) ................................................ 58.01.01.199. 

05/12/2008 ........................... 2007 IBR of Federal Regulations (58–0101–0701) ........ 58.01.01.008, 107, 200, 204, 205. 

06/08/2009 1 ......................... Sulfur Content of Fuels (58–0101–0703) ........................ 58.01.01.725. 

2008 IBR of Federal Rules (58–0101–0802) .................. 58.01.01.008 and 107. 

1The May 22, 2003 and June 8, 2009 SIP submittals included IDEQ SIP revisions for the control of nonmetallic mineral processing plants 

(IDEQ Docket 58–0101–0002 and a portion of Docket 58–0101–0802), which will be acted on in a separate action. 2The May 6, 2006 submittal included IDEQ’s SIP revision for the facility emissions cap (IDEQ Docket 58–0101–0508) which will be acted on in 

a separate action. 

B. What comments did we receive on 

our proposal for these revisions? 

National Resource Defense Council 

(NRDC) commented on EPA’s proposal 

to approve changes to Idaho’s 

permitting programs for major stationary 

sources, specifically the prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) permit 

program and the nonattainment area 

(Part D) permit program that incorporate 

EPA’s ‘‘2002 NSR Reform Rules.’’ NRDC 

primarily commented on the 

requirements of the Federal NSR rules, 

not Idaho’s application of the Federal 

requirements in its own rules. Notably, 

NRDC participated in litigation 

challenging EPA’s promulgation of the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules, where similar 

arguments were made by NRDC and 

dismissed by the DC Circuit Court. New 

York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). 

NRDC’s comments in this action, 

including exhibits, do not raise any 

specific concerns with Idaho’s rules, but 

rather, reiterate arguments made by 

NRDC to the DC Circuit regarding 

Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Clean Air 

Act.1

Although NRDC’s comments provide 

citations to nine sections of the Idaho 

rules, the comments make no attempt to 

specifically explain or demonstrate how 

those identified provisions are 

inconsistent with either Section 110(l) 

or Section 193 of the CAA. Furthermore, 

NRDC provides no evidence supporting 

its allegations that approval of the 

specific provisions would result in a 

violation of the CAA or otherwise be 

‘‘arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, and otherwise not in 

accordance with law.’’ NRDC Comments 

at 2. The NRDC comments include a list 

of 31 exhibits which the comment letter 

incorporates by reference into the 

comments. NRDC Comments at 1 and 

11–12. The 31 exhibits appear to all be 

related to the DC Circuit Court case New 

York v. EPA, and were either submitted 

to that Court for review, or are relevant 

to that adjudication. In any event, none 

of the 31 exhibits provides EPA with 

any comments specific to the Idaho 

rules at issue. Despite the lack of Idahospecific discussion in NRDC’s letter, 

EPA has responded to the few 

comments that appear related to the 

March 18, 2010, proposal to approve 

Idaho’s SIP revisions pertaining to 

EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules. 

1. Section 110(l) 

a. Summary of comments regarding 

Section 110(l): 

NRDC asserts that ‘‘[t]he 2002 NSR 

Reform Rule provisions that were not 

vacated by the DC Circuit in New York 

v. EPA [citation omitted] allow 

previously-prohibited emissionsincreases to occur.’’ NRDC Comments at 

4. As a result, NRDC states that, ‘‘it 

cannot be said of Idaho’s plan that it 

‘will cause no degradation of air 

quality’ ’’ and ‘‘Idaho has made no 

‘demonstration that the emissions that 

are allowed by its revised rule but are 

prohibited by the current SIP would not 

interfere with attainment or other 

applicable requirements.’ ’’ NRDC 

Comments at 5. Further, NRDC states 

that ‘‘EPA has never made, or even 

proposed to make, a finding that 

revisions to Idaho’s permit provisions so 

that they track the non-vacated 

provisions of the 2002 rule ‘will cause 

no degradation of air quality’ [citations 

omitted] or avoid ‘interfering with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

[NAAQS], or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act,’’ and that ‘‘EPA 

fails to even cite CAA Section 110(l) in 

the proposal.’’ NRDC Comments at 5. 

Finally, NRDC concludes that 

‘‘finalizing the EPA rulemaking proposal 

at issue here would violate section 

110(l) of the Act.’’ NRDC Comments at 

5. 

b. EPA response to Section 110(l)- 

related comments: 

EPA’s 2002 NSR Reform Rules were 

upheld by the DC Circuit Court which 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72721 

2For more information on the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules, and its supporting technical documents, see 

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/actions.html#2002 (last 

visited November 21, 2008). 

3While NRDC has not identified the specific 

provisions within these sections in Idaho’s 

submittal that they contend prevent the State’s 

revised plan from meeting the criteria in Section 

110(l), by its many references to EPA’s 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules, EPA presumes that NRDC is referring 

to the changes to the applicability provisions for 

determining when modifications to existing major 

stationary sources are subject to review (i.e., when 

a major modification would occur). The responses 

to NRDC’s comments that follow are based on that 

presumption. 

reviewed them, with the exception of 

the pollution control project and clean 

unit provisions (and the remanded 

matters). The three significant changes 

in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were 

upheld by the DC Circuit were (1) 

plantwide applicability limits (PALs), 

(2) the 2-in-10 baseline, and (3) the 

actual-to-projected actual emission test. 

The Supplemental Environmental 

Analysis of the Impact of the 2002 Final 

NSR Improvement Rules (November 21, 

2002) (Supplemental Analysis) 

discussed each of these three changes 

individually, and addresses some of the 

issues raised by NRDC. 

With regard to PALs, the 

Supplemental Analysis explains, ‘‘The 

EPA expects that the adoption of PAL 

provisions will result in a net 

environmental benefit. Our experience 

to date is that the emissions caps found 

in PAL-type permits result in real 

emissions reductions, as well as other 

benefits.’’ Supplemental Analysis at 6. 

EPA further explained that, 

Although it is impossible to predict how 

many and which sources will take PALs, and 

what actual reductions those sources will 

achieve for what pollutants, we believe that, 

on a nationwide basis, PALs are certain to 

lead to tens of thousands of tons of 

reductions of VOC from source categories 

where frequent operational changes are 

made, where these changes are timesensitive, and where there are opportunities 

for economical air pollution control 

measures. These reductions occur because of 

the incentives that the PAL creates to control 

existing and new units in order to provide 

room under the cap to make necessary 

operational changes over the life of the PAL. 

Supplemental Analysis at 7. The 

Supplemental Analysis, and particularly 

Appendix B, provides additional details 

regarding EPA’s analysis of PALs and 

anticipated associated emissions 

decreases. 

With regard to the 2-in-10 baseline, 

EPA concluded that, ‘‘The EPA believes 

that the environmental impact from the 

change in baseline EPA is now 

finalizing will not result in any 

significant change in benefits derived 

from the NSR program.’’ Supplemental 

Analysis at 13. This is mainly because 

‘‘the number of sources receiving 

different baselines likely represents a 

very small fraction of the overall NSR 

permit universe, excludes new sources 

and coal fired power plants, and 

because the baseline may shift in either 

direction, we conclude that any overall 

consequences would be negligible.’’ 

Supplemental Analysis at 14. 

Additional information regarding the 2- 

in-10 baseline changes is available in 

the Supplemental Analysis, Appendix 

F. 

With regard to the actual-to-projected 

actual test, EPA concluded, ‘‘we believe 

that the environmental impacts of the 

switch to the actual-to-projected actual 

test are likely to be environmentally 

beneficial. However, as with the change 

to the baseline, we believe the vast 

majority of sources, including new 

sources, new units, electric utility steam 

generating units, and units that actually 

increase emissions as a result of a 

change, will be unaffected by this 

change. Thus, the overall impacts of the 

NSR changes are likely to be 

environmentally beneficial, but only to 

a small extent.’’ Supplemental Analysis 

at 14 (see also Supplemental Analysis 

Appendix G).2

Section 110(l) of the CAA states that 

‘‘[t]he Administrator shall not approve a 

revision of a plan if the revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress * * * or any 

other applicable requirement of this 

chapter.’’ Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7410(l). In ‘‘Approval and Promulgation 

of Implementation Plans; New Source 

Review; State of Nevada, Clark County 

Department of Air Quality and 

Environmental Management,’’ 69 FR 

54006 (September 7, 2004), the EPA 

stated that Section 110(l) does not 

preclude SIP relaxations. The Agency 

stated that Section 110(l) only requires 

that the ‘‘relaxations not interfere with 

specified requirements of the Act 

including requirements for attainment 

and reasonable further progress,’’ and 

that, therefore, a state can relax its SIP 

provisions if it is able to show that it can 

‘‘attain or maintain the [National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS)] and meet any applicable 

reasonable further progress goals or 

other specific requirements.’’ 69 FR at 

54011–12. 

As the commenter acknowledges, the 

Idaho PSD/NSR rules track the Federal 

2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA did 

evaluate Idaho’s rules consistent with 

its evaluation of the Federal rules, and 

determined that Idaho’s rules were 

equivalent to the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules. Overall, as summarized above, 

EPA expects that changes in air quality 

as a result of implementing Idaho’s 

PSD/NSR rules will be consistent with 

EPA’s position on the Federal 2002 NSR 

Reform Rules—that there will be 

somewhere between neutral and 

providing modest contribution to 

reasonable further progress when the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules are compared to 

the pre-reform provisions. EPA’s 

analysis for the environmental impacts 

of these three components of the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules is informative of how 

Idaho’s adoption of NSR Reform (based 

on the Federal rules) will affect 

emissions. EPA has no reason to believe 

that the environmental impacts will be 

different from those discussed in the 

Supplemental Analysis for the 2002 

NSR Reform Rules, and, thus, approval 

of Idaho’s SIP revision would not be 

contrary to Section 110(l) of the CAA. 

As discussed above, NRDC cites to 

nine general sections of Idaho’s rules as 

provisions that would violate Section 

110(l).3 Without further specificity, 

however, it is not clear why or how 

NRDC believes approval of these 

provisions would violate Section 110(l). 

Moreover, NRDC has provided no 

Idaho-specific documentation that 

indicates that EPA’s analysis and 

conclusions regarding the impact of the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules, in the 

Supplemental Analysis, are not 

applicable to Idaho’s rules which mirror 

the Federal rules. 

EPA evaluated Idaho’s rules in 

comparison with the existing Federal 

rules, and determined that Idaho’s rules 

were equivalent to the 2002 NSR Reform 

(Federal) Rules. EPA also considered the 

Supplemental Analysis in reviewing 

NRDC’s comments. EPA concluded that 

approval of Idaho’s SIP revision would 

not be contrary to Section 110(l) of the 

CAA because they implement Federal 

provisions. This comparison was 

discussed in the proposal to approve 

Idaho’s SIP revision. Absent more 

explicit information demonstrating that 

Idaho’s plan for implementation of a 

specific provision of its rules would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the Clean Air Act and 

thus should be disapproved under 

Section 110(l), Idaho’s SIP submission 

and the Supplemental Analysis support 

approval and there is no basis to 

determine that approval of Idaho’s rules 

would violate Section 110(l). 

Although NRDC has not identified the 

specific provisions within these sections 

in Idaho’s submittal that they contend 

prevent the State’s revised plan from 

meeting the criteria in Section 110(l), 

EPA presumes that NRDC is referring to 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

the changes to the applicability 

provisions for determining when 

modifications to existing major 

stationary sources are subject to review 

(i.e., when a major modification would 

occur) because those provisions of the 

2002 NSR Reform Rules differ most 

from PSD and Part D NSR rules 

currently approved in the Idaho SIP. 

With respect to major modifications, 

IDEQ has informed EPA that it issued 

only one PSD permit for a major 

modification in the ten years prior to 

adopting the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

and has not issued a PSD permit for a 

major modification in the five years 

since adopting the NSR Reform changes. 

Given this permitting record, EPA does 

not believe that there is any evidence 

that the change to the major 

modification applicability provisions in 

the Idaho SIP resulting from Idaho’s 

adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment or 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the CAA. 

In addition, EPA does not believe that 

the change to the definition of major 

modification has interfered, or will 

interfere, with Idaho’s ability to ensure 

reasonable further progress in any 

nonattainment area. Of the five areas in 

Idaho that were designated 

nonattainment in response to the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments, all five 

have now attained the applicable 

NAAQS. Three have been formally 

redesignated to attainment, two before 

and one after Idaho revised its NSR 

rules (Boise-Ada County CO, 67 FR 

65713 (October 28, 2002; eff. December 

27, 2002); Ada County (Boise) PM10, 68 

FR 61106 (October 27, 2003, eff. 

November 26, 2003); and Portneuf 

Valley (Pocatello) PM10, 71 FR 39574 

(July 13, 2006, eff. August 14, 2006)). 

Two have been determined to have 

attained the applicable NAAQS, one 

before and one after Idaho revised its 

NSR rules (Pinehurst (Shoshone 

County) PM10, 66 FR 44304 (August 23, 

2001, eff. October 22, 2001) and 

Sandpoint PM10, 75 FR 35302 (June 22, 

2010, eff. August 23, 2010)). Since all 

nonattainment areas have successfully 

attained the NAAQS, some before and 

some after the revision to the NSR rules, 

EPA finds no basis to conclude that the 

change to the rules would interfere with 

Idaho’s ability to ensure reasonable 

further progress in any nonattainment 

area. There are no existing major 

sources of PM2.5 or PM2.5 precursors in 

the newly designated Franklin County 

(Cache Valley) PM2.5 nonattainment 

area, so the change to the Part D NSR 

rule will not affect Idaho’s ability to 

ensure reasonable further progress when 

it develops and submits the attainment 

plan for that newly designated area. 

Moreover, although NRDC 

acknowledges that ‘‘110(l) requires 

* * * a determination that the specific 

revision, when considered in the context 

of the SIP elements already in place, can 

meet the Act’s attainment 

requirements,’’ (citing Hall v. EPA, 273 

F.3d 1146, 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(emphasis added), NRDC’s comments 

fail to consider the other permitting 

rules in the Idaho SIP along with the 

revisions to those rules that EPA is 

proposing to approve in this action. The 

Idaho SIP includes a single ‘‘permit to 

construct’’ program (IDAPA 

58.01.01.200 through 228) that includes 

requirements for the construction and 

modification of stationary sources, 

including major stationary sources in 

nonattainment areas (IDAPA 

58.01.01.204) and attainment or 

unclassifiable areas (IDAPA 

58.01.01.205). Importantly, the Idaho 

rules require that changes to existing 

major stationary sources that are not 

subject to review under the provisions 

for major sources are subject to the 

nonmajor source requirements of IDAPA 

58.01.01.200 through 228 (see IDAPA 

58.01.01.204.03 and 58.01.01.205.04). 

The nonmajor source requirements 

include the requirement that no permit 

to construct shall be granted unless the 

applicant shows that the stationary 

source or modification would not cause 

or significantly contribute to a violation 

of any ambient air quality standard 

(IDAPA 58.01.01.203.02). Thus, changes 

at existing major stationary sources that 

would have undergone review as major 

modifications under Idaho’s existing 

PSD SIP but now may not be reviewed 

as major modifications under Idaho’s 

adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules 

must still undergo review as nonmajor 

changes and cannot be constructed if 

they would cause or significantly 

contribute to a violation of the NAAQS. 

Idaho’s nonmajor new source review 

requirements provide additional 

assurance that Idaho’s adoption of the 

2002 NSR Reform rules will not 

interfere with the Idaho SIP’s ability to 

attain and maintain the NAAQS, and 

the commenter has provided no 

information to the contrary. 

2. Section 193 

a. Summary of comments regarding 

Section 193: 

NRDC states that NSR is a ‘‘control 

requirement’’ and thus the requirements 

of Section 193 apply to the NSR rules 

at issue in the Idaho SIP revision. NRDC 

Comments at 8. NRDC further alleges 

that Idaho’s revisions ‘‘ensure that 

emissions will not be reduced as much 

as under the preexisting rules. In fact, 

the modifications allow emissions to 

increase in Idaho’s nonattainment 

areas.’’ NRDC Comments at 9. Finally, 

NRDC states that ‘‘because section 193 

lies within part D,’’ ‘‘if EPA approves 

Idaho’s revised plan, that action will 

additionally exceed the agency’s 

authority under section 110(k)(3) and 

violate section 100(l) [this appears to be 

a typo and should read 110(l)].’’ NRDC 

Comments at 10. 

b. EPA response to Section 193- 

related Comments: 

The response to the Section 193 

issues raised by NRDC involves many of 

the same elements of the response above 

to the Section 110(l) comments, which 

is also incorporated by reference here. 

Section 193 states (in relevant part) 

that ‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect, 

or required to be adopted by an order, 

settlement agreement, or plan in effect 

before November 15, 1990, in any area 

which is a nonattainment area for any 

air pollutant may be modified after 

November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ 

Assuming for purposes of this 

discussion that Section 193 does apply 

to the instant action, as was discussed 

earlier in this notice, EPA has 

previously determined and explained in 

the Supplemental Analysis that 

implementation of the 2002 NSR Reform 

Rules still in effect (that is, those not 

vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its New 

York I decision) are expected to have at 

least a neutral environmental benefit. 

Therefore, even if Section 193 did apply 

to this action, EPA does not agree with 

commenter’s assertions that the SIP 

submissions approved in this action 

raise a Section 193 concern. 

In addition, the core of NRDC’s 

argument seems to revolve around the 

DC Circuit Court decision in South 

Coast Air Quality Management District 

v. EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 

(finding that NSR associated with the 1- 

hour ozone standard included control 

requirements). At issue in South Coast 

was EPA’s determination regarding the 

revocation of the entire 1-hour ozone 

program (and corresponding SIP 

elements), including all the 1-hour 

nonattainment NSR elements, and 

whether such elements would continue 

to be required as part of SIPs 

implementing the new (at that time) 8- 

hour ozone standard. The facts in the 

South Coast case are thus 

distinguishable from the instant matter 

where the Idaho SIP is merely being 

updated to include changes to the 2002 

Federal NSR Rules and, as discussed 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72723 

4EPA also notes that there are only three 

nonattainment areas in Idaho where the Part D NSR 

rules apply. There are no existing major stationary 

sources within any of these nonattainment areas so 

the rule provisions that define when a modification 

to an existing major source would be subject to 

review do not actually apply to any sources. 

above, those changes insure equivalent 

or greater emission reductions. EPA is 

not removing the entirety of its Part D 

NSR program from the Idaho SIP as it 

pertains to a particular NAAQS. Rather, 

EPA is simply approving Idaho’s SIP 

revisions that implement rules 

equivalent to Federal rules; and as 

discussed earlier in this notice, EPA 

developed a Supplemental Analysis to 

support adoption of the Federal rules. 

The Idaho SIP will continue to operate 

with the full suite of NSR related 

elements.4

II. Final Action 

EPA is taking final action to approve 

all of the amendments to the Rules for 

the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho as 

submitted by the Director of IDEQ on 

May 22, 2003, April 2, 2004, July 13, 

2005, May 5, 2006, April 16, 2007, May 

12, 2008, and June 8, 2009, except for 

certain sections listed below. This 

action will result in changes to the 

Idaho SIP in 40 CFR part 52, subpart N. 

A. Rules To Approve into the Idaho SIP 

EPA approves into the SIP at 40 CFR 

part 52, subpart N, the Idaho regulations 

listed in Table 2. It is important to note 

that in those instances where IDEQ 

submitted multiple revisions to a single 

section of IDAPA 58.01.01, the most 

recent version of that section (based on 

state effective date) is incorporated into 

the SIP because it supersedes all 

previous revisions. 

TABLE 2—IDAHO REGULATIONS FOR PROPOSED APPROVAL

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date Explanation 

58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

006 ................. General Definitions .................................................................................... 4/11/2006 Except Section 006.66(b) (re: state 

air toxics in definition of ‘‘modification’’). 

007 ................. Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 200 through 225 and 400 

through 461.

4/11/2006 

107 ................. Incorporations by Reference ..................................................................... 5/8/2009 Except Section 107.03(g) through 

(n) and (p). 

133 ................. Start-up, Shutdown and Scheduled Maintenance Requirements ............. 4/11/2006 

134 ................. Upset, Breakdown and Safety Requirements ........................................... 4/11/2006 

135 ................. Excess Emission Reports ......................................................................... 4/11/2006 

155 ................. Circumvention ............................................................................................ 4/11/2006 

200 ................. Procedures and Requirements for Permits to Construct .......................... 4/2/2008 

201 ................. Permit to Construct Required .................................................................... 7/1/2002 

202 ................. Application Procedures ............................................................................. 4/6/2005

204 ................. Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in 

Nonattainment Areas.

4/2/2008 

205 ................. Permit Requirements for New Major Facilities or Major Modifications in 

Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.

4/2/2008 

206 ................. Optional Offsets for Permits to Construct ................................................. 4/6/2005 

209 ................. Procedures for Issuing Permits ................................................................. 4/11/2006 

213 ................. Pre-Permit Construction ............................................................................ 4/11/2006 

220 ................. General Exemption Criteria for Permit to Construct Exemptions ............. 4/11/2006 

222 ................. Category II Exemptions ............................................................................. 4/11/2006 

400 ................. Procedures and Requirements for Tier II Operating Permits ................... 7/1/2002 

401 ................. Tier II Operating Permit ............................................................................. 4/6/2005 Except 401.01.a (bubbles) and 

401.04 (compliance date extension). 

402 ................. Application Procedures ............................................................................. 7/1/2002

404 ................. Procedure for Issuing Permits ................................................................... 4/11/2006 

460 ................. Requirements for Emission Reduction Credits ......................................... 4/11/2006 

511 ................. Applicability ................................................................................................ 4/11/2006 

512 ................. Definitions .................................................................................................. 4/11/2006 

513 ................. Requirements ............................................................................................ 4/11/2006 

560 ................. Notification to Sources .............................................................................. 4/11/2006 

561 ................. General Rules ........................................................................................... 4/11/2006 

575 ................. Air Quality Standards and Area Classification .......................................... 4/11/2006 

581 ................. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Increments ........................ 4/11/2006 

679 ................. Averaging Period ....................................................................................... 4/11/2006 

700 ................. Particulate Matter Process Weight Limitations ......................................... 5/3/2003 More recent state rule effective 

date. 

725 ................. Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels ............................................................. 5/8/2009 

B. Rules on Which No Action Is Taken 

EPA is taking no action on the 

following rules: 

58.01.01.008, Definitions for Purposes of 

Section 300 through 386 

58.01.01.199, Electric Generating Unit 

Construction Prohibition 

58.01.01.210, Demonstration of 

Preconstruction Compliance with 

Toxic Standards 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

5 ‘‘Indian country’’ is defined under 18 U.S.C. 

1151 as: (1) All land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the United 

States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of 

any patent, and including rights-of-way running 

through the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian 

communities within the borders of the United 

States, whether within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether within or 

without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian 

allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way running 

through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats 

as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the 

use of a Tribe even if the trust lands have not been 

formally designated as a reservation. In Idaho, 

Indian country includes, but is not limited to, the 

Coeur d’Alene Reservation, the Duck Valley 

Reservation, the Reservation of the Kootenai Tribe, 

the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, and the Nez Perce 

Reservation as described in the 1863 Nez Perce 

Treaty. 

58.01.01.225, Permit to Construct 

Processing Fee 

58.01.01.228, Appeals 

58.01.01.313, 317, 387–399, 395, 

Procedures and Requirements for 

Tier I Operating Permits 

58.01.01.410, Appeals 

58.01.01.175–181, Procedures and 

Requirements for Permits 

Establishing a Facility Emissions 

Cap 

58.01.01.861, Standards of Performance 

of Hospital/Medical/Infectious 

Waste Incinerators 

C. Scope of Action 

Idaho has not demonstrated authority 

to implement and enforce IDAPA 

Chapter 58 within ‘‘Indian Country’’ as 

defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.5 Therefore, 

EPA proposes that this SIP approval not 

extend to ‘‘Indian Country’’ in Idaho. See 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall 

include enforceable emission limits), 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate 

authority under State law to carry out 

SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs 

shall include enforceable emission 

limits). This is consistent with EPA’s 

previous approval of Idaho’s PSD 

program, in which EPA specifically 

disapproved the program for sources 

within Indian Reservations in Idaho 

because the State had not shown it had 

authority to regulate such sources. See 

40 CFR 52.683(b). It is also consistent 

with EPA’s approval of Idaho’s title V 

air operating permits program. See 61 

FR 64622, 64623 (December 6, 1996) 

(interim approval does not extend to 

Indian Country); 66 FR 50574, 50575 

(October 4, 2001) (full approval does not 

extend to Indian Country). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 25, 2011. 

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 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. 

Dated: November 10, 2010. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator Region 10. 

■ 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 N—Idaho 

■ 2. In § 52.670(c), the table in 

paragraph (c) is amended: 

■ a. By revising entries 006 and 007. 

■ b. By revising entry 107. 

■ c. By revising entry 200. 

■ d. By revising entries 133 though 135. 

■ e. By revising entry 155. 

■ f. By revising entries 201 and 202. 

■ g. By revising entries 204 through 206. 

■ h. By revising entry 209. 

■ i. By revising entry 213. 

■ j. By revising entry 220. 

■ k. By revising entry 222. 

■ l. By revising entries 400 through 402. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72725 

■ m. By revising entry 404. 

■ n. By revising entry 460. 

■ o. By revising entries 511 through 513. 

■ p. By revising entries 560 and 561. 

■ q. By revising entry 575. 

■ r. By revising entry 581. 

■ s. By revising entry 679. 

■ t. By revising entry 700. 

■ u. By revising entry 725. 

§ 52.670 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IDAPA) 58.01.01—Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho 

*******

006 .................. General Definitions ............................... 4/11/06, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 

3/20/97, 5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

Except Section 

006.55(b) (re: state air 

toxics in definition of 

‘‘modification’’). 

007 .................. Definitions for the Purposes of Sections 200 through 225 and 400 

through 461.

4/11/06, 4/5/00, 6/30/95, 

5/1/95, 5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

107 .................. Incorporations by Reference ................ 5/8/09, 3/30/07, 3/20/04, 

7/1/97, 5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

Except Section 

107.03(g) through (n) 

and (p). 

* * * * * * * 

133 .................. Start-up, Shutdown and Scheduled 

Maintenance Requirements.

4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 ..... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

134 .................. Upset, Breakdown and Safety Requirements.4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 ..... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

135 .................. Excess Emission Reports ..................... 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 3/20/97 ..... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

155 .................. Circumvention ....................................... 4/11/06 ............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

200 .................. Procedures and Requirements for Permits to Construct.4/2/2008 ............................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

201 .................. Permit to Construct Required ............... 7/1/02 ................................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

202 .................. Application Procedures ......................... 4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 

5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

204 .................. Permit Requirements for New Major 

Facilities or Major Modifications in 

Nonattainment Areas.

4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05, 

4/5/00, 5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

205 .................. Permit Requirements for New Major 

Facilities or Major Modifications in 

Attainment or Unclassifiable Areas.

4/2/08, 3/30/07, 4/6/05 ....... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

206 .................. Optional Offsets for Permits to Construct.4/6/05 ................................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
72726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

*******

209 .................. Procedures for Issuing Permits ............ 4/11/06, 4/6/05, 5/3/03, 

7/1/02, 4/5/00, 3/19/99, 

3/23/98, 5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

213 .................. Pre-Permit Construction ....................... 4/11/06, 5/3/03, 4/5/00, 

3/23/98 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

220 .................. General Exemption Criteria for Permit 

to Construct Exemptions.

4/11/06, 4/5/00 ................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

222 .................. Category II Exemptions ........................ 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94, 

7/1/97 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

400 .................. Procedures and Requirements for Tier 

II Operating Permits.

7/1/02 ................................. 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

401 .................. Tier II Operating Permit ........................ 4/6/05, 7/1/02, 4/5/00, 

5/1/94 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

Except 401.01.a (bubbles) and 401.04 

(compliance date extension). 

402 .................. Application Procedures ......................... 7/1/02, 5/1/94, 4/5/00, 

7/1/02 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

404 .................. Procedure for Issuing Permits .............. 4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94, 

7/1/02 

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

460 .................. Requirements for Emission Reduction 

Credits.

4/11/06, 4/5/00, 5/1/94 ....... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

511 .................. Applicability ........................................... 4/11/06 ............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

512 .................. Definitions ............................................. 4/11/06, 5/1/94, 4/5/00 ....... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

513 .................. Requirements ........................................ 4/11/06 ............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

560 .................. Notification to Sources .......................... 4/11/06 ............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 227 / Friday, November 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 72727 

EPA-APPROVED IDAHO REGULATIONS—Continued 

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations 

561 .................. General Rules ....................................... 4/11/06, 5/1/94, 3/15/02 ..... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

575 .................. Air Quality Standards and Area Classification.4/11/06 ............................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

581 .................. Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) Increments.

4/11/06, 5/3/03, 7/1/97, 5/1/ 

94.

11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

679 .................. Averaging Period .................................. 4/11/06, 5/1/94 ................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

700 .................. Particulate Matter Process Weight Limitations.5/3/03, 4/5/00 ..................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * * * 

725 .................. Rules for Sulfur Content of Fuels ......... 5/8/09, 5/1/94 ..................... 11/26/2010 [Insert page 

number where the document begins] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–29628 Filed 11–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[EPA–HQ–TRI–2010–0006; FRL–9231–5] 

RIN 2025–AA28 

Addition of National Toxicology 

Program Carcinogens; Community 

Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release 

Reporting 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is adding 16 chemicals to 

the list of toxic chemicals subject to 

reporting under section 313 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and 

section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention 

Act of 1990 (PPA). These 16 chemicals 

have been classified by the National 

Toxicology Program in their Report on 

Carcinogens as ‘‘reasonably anticipated 

to be a human carcinogen.’’ EPA has 

determined that these 16 chemicals 

meet the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) 

criteria because they can reasonably be 

anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

November 30, 2010, and shall apply for 

the reporting year beginning January 1, 

2011 (reports due July 1, 2012). 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–TRI–2010–0006. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the 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 telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is (202) 

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the OEI Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Daniel R. Bushman, Environmental 

Analysis Division, Office of Information 

Analysis and Access (2842T), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566– 

0743; fax number: 202–566–0677; email: bushman.daniel@epa.gov, for 

specific information on this notice. For 

general information on EPCRA section 

313, contact the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, 

toll free at (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412– 

9810 in Virginia and Alaska or toll free, 

TDD (800) 553–7672, http:// 

www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hotline/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this notice apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you manufacture, process, 

or otherwise use any of the chemicals 

included in this final rule. Potentially 

affected categories and entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES