Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 79961 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Parts 154 and 155 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 112 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–0592; EPA–HQ– 

OPA–2010–0559] 

RIN 1625–AB49; 2050–AG63 

Temporary Suspension of Certain Oil 

Spill Response Time Requirements To 

Support Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill of 

National Significance (SONS) 

Response 

AGENCIES: Coast Guard, DHS, and 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of no further regulatory 

action and alternative arrangements. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

announce that we have considered the 

comments, materials, and evidence 

received in response to the joint 

emergency temporary interim rule 

issued on June 30, 2010, and do not 

intend to take further regulatory action 

regarding the rule. As such, the rule will 

expire as scheduled on December 31, 

2010. The Coast Guard and EPA also 

provide notice of the alternative 

arrangements under the National 

Environmental Policy Act used for the 

joint emergency temporary interim rule. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of dockets USCG–2010– 

0592 and EPA–HQ–OPA–2010–0559 

and are available online by going to 

http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–0592 or EPA–HQ–OPA– 

2010–0559 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ box, and 

then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ They are also 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays; and EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, 

Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20460, Public 

Reading Room, between 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center 

Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744, 

and the telephone number to make an 

appointment to view the docket is 202– 

566–0276. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail: 

Coast Guard: (Facilities) Mr. David 

Condino, Ports and Facilities Division, 

Coast Guard, telephone 202–372–1145, 

e-mail David.A.Condino@uscg.mil; 

(Vessels) LCDR Ryan Allain, Office of 

Vessel Activities, Coast Guard, 

telephone 202–372–1226, e-mail 

Ryan.D.Allain@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the USCG–2010– 

0952 docket, call Renee V. Wright, 

Program Manager, Docket Operations, 

telephone 202–366–9826. 

EPA: Troy Swackhammer, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

telephone 202–564–1966, e-mail 

swackhammer.j-troy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

20, 2010, the Mobile Offshore Drilling 

Unit (MODU) ‘‘Deepwater Horizon’’ 

exploded and sank, causing an 

unprecedented discharge of crude oil 

into the Gulf of Mexico, which was 

thereafter declared a ‘‘Spill of National 

Significance’’ (SONS). On April 24, 

2010, the Commandant of the Coast 

Guard designated a Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator (FOSC) to coordinate 

Federal and State responses to the oil 

spill. 

On June 16, 2010, the FOSC for the 

Deepwater Horizon SONS determined, 

after consulting with appropriate 

Federal and State agencies, that an 

adequate number of available oil spill 

response resources could not be 

employed in a timely manner to recover 

the oil released from the Deepwater 

Horizon SONS. (Memorandum from 

Rear Admiral J.A. Watson, FOSC BP 

Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, to 

National Incident Command (June 16, 

2010), available in the docket for this 

rulemaking). 

In response to the FOSC’s 

determination, on June 30, 2010, the 

Coast Guard and EPA issued a joint 

emergency temporary interim rule 

permitting oil spill removal 

organizations (OSROs) and facilities and 

vessels with oil spill response resources 

to relocate those resources to the Gulf of 

Mexico Deepwater Horizon SONSat the 

FOSC’s request. 75 FR 37712. The rule 

also confirmed that the FOSC for the 

Deepwater Horizon SONS requested 

that the Armed Forces relocate response 

resources, in particular those of the 

Navy, from their current locations 

within the continental United States to 

the Gulf of Mexico to aid in the 

response to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS. 

The Navy did relocate response 

resources to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS. While many spare State and 

privately owned resources had already 

relocated to the Gulf of Mexico before 

publication of the rule, no State or 

private entity relocated response 

resources to the SONS under the 

provisions of the rule. 

The Coast Guard and EPA also 

requested comments on the rule, and 

stated that we would consider those 

comments and any other materials or 

evidence received from the field on an 

ongoing basis every thirty days to 

determine if changes to the rule might 

be necessary. The comment period 

closed on August 16, 2010, with the 

Coast Guard and EPA receiving 27 

comments. We discuss those comments 

below. Neither the Coast Guard nor EPA 

has received comments since the close 

of the comment period. Although the 

rule will expire as scheduled on 

December 31, 2010, Coast Guard and 

EPA will continue to consider any new 

or additional comments, material or 

evidence related to the provisions of the 

rule until that date. If we decide to make 

changes to the rule before its expiration, 

we will publish another joint notice, or 

other appropriate document, in the 

Federal Register. 

For this emergency rulemaking, and 

in accordance with Council On 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations Implementing the 

Procedural Requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (43 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), the 

Coast Guard, with the assistance of EPA, 

consulted with CEQ about alternative 

arrangements pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.11. The Coast Guard, with the 

assistance of EPA, continued to consult 

with CEQ as well as with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and other key 

authorities in order to determine 

appropriate environmental impact 

analysis. A discussion of these 

consultations and determinations is 

below in B. Alternative Arrangements 

under NEPA. As stated above and 

discussed in greater detail below, the 

rule will expire as scheduled on 

December 31, 2010, without changes. 

A. Discussion of Comments 

The Coast Guard and EPA received 8 

letters containing 27 comments in 

response to the request for comments on 

the rule. Commenters included 

individuals; an organization that 

represents companies that own, operate 

or charter tankers, ships, and other 

merchant vessels engaged in domestic 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
79962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and international trade; an organization 

representing State environmental and 

health agencies; and a trade association 

representing companies involved in all 

aspects of the oil and natural gas 

industry. We also received comments 

from the Makah Tribal Council (MTC), 

and joint comments from the Governor 

of Washington and the Governor of 

Oregon. The Coast Guard and EPA 

responded directly in writing to MTC 

and the Governors. Those comments 

and responses, together with all other 

public comments, are available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. Also in the 

docket is a summary of an in-person 

communication that occurred on July 1, 

2010, between Coast Guard personnel 

and OSRO community representatives 

regarding the rule. The in-person 

communication touched on concerns 

and questions about the substance of the 

rule, as well as questions relating to 

implementation of the rule. These 

concerns and questions and Coast Guard 

responsive comments are included in 

the summary of the communication, and 

are covered in the discussion below. 

Several of the comments expressed 

support for the Coast Guard and EPA 

efforts to respond to the Deepwater 

Horizon SONS, and we appreciate the 

statements of support. Several other 

comments provided opinions about the 

causes and effects of the oil spill. The 

Coast Guard and EPA appreciate these 

commenters’ participation in this 

rulemaking, however, such comments 

are beyond the scope of this rulemaking 

and are not addressed in this document. 

The remaining comments addressed the 

rule and are discussed by topic below. 

1. Plan Holder Liability 

Commenters were concerned about 

plan holder liability for damages and 

penalties if a spill occurred in their 

original location after the plan holder 

already contractually released its spill 

response providers and equipment for 

use in the response to the Deepwater 

Horizon SONS. Commenters were also 

concerned about liability under State 

requirements as well as other penalties, 

such as natural resource damages, under 

other Federal and State law. 

Response: The intent of the rule is to 

make available more response resources 

for use in responding to the Deepwater 

Horizon SONS by relieving certain 

Coast Guard and EPA regulatory 

requirements. Through this rule, the 

Coast Guard and EPA encouraged plan 

holders to relieve their contractedOSROs of certain responsibilities in 

order for those OSROs to be available to 

aid in responding to the Deepwater 

Horizon SONS. The Coast Guard and 

EPA coordinated on the rule because 

many oil spill response plans address 

both Coast Guard and EPA oil spill 

response requirements. The rule was not 

meant to address all sources of potential 

plan holder liability, including other 

Federal requirements or State 

requirements. 

2. Oil Spill Response Resources Return 

Time 

Several comments noted concerns 

about the return of assets to original 

locations. One comment expressed 

concern that the rule does not contain 

a timetable for returning assets used in 

response to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS. Other comments noted the 

distances and travel time for response 

assets from the West Coast, especially 

for larger vessels, to deploy to the Gulf 

in response to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS and to return to the assets’ 

original locations if needed to respond 

to an oil spill in those locations. 

Response: The rule does not address 

return times for assets relocated in 

support of the response to the 

Deepwater Horizon SONS, because 

under the rule such issues, including 

the relative environmental impacts and 

other risks and impacts of the FOSC 

requesting and accepting offers for 

specific response resources from 

locations outside the Gulf of Mexico, are 

coordinated at the local level with the 

cognizant Captains of the Port (COTPs), 

Regional Response Teams, and Area 

Committees. 

Additionally, in the letter to the 

Governors of Washington and Oregon 

dated September 3, 2010, (available in 

the docket) the Coast Guard and EPA 

specifically stated: ‘‘Any decision to 

request or accept [deployment of 

equipment or personnel that would 

result in the loss of response capability 

below worst case and maximum most 

probable discharge response time 

requirements in the Pacific Northwest] 

will consider carefully the distances and 

travel time from the West Coast to the 

Gulf Coast spill.’’ 

3. Adequate Coverage in Regions 

Outside the Gulf of Mexico 

Comments addressed concerns about 

whether the Average Most Probable 

Discharge and Small Discharge 

standards in the rule provided adequate 

coverage, especially for the West Coast 

and Pacific Northwest, as well as delays 

in an adequate number of response 

resources responding to any oil spill 

outside of the Gulf Region. One 

comment noted that almost all new 

response equipment manufactured/built 

during the Deepwater Horizon SONS 

will likely be purchased/deployed for 

response to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS, further lengthening the time to 

return other locations to full 

preparedness levels under current 

response plan standards. 

Response: As discussed above, under 

the rule, any decisions about equipment 

and personnel deployment are 

coordinated at the local level with the 

cognizant COTPs, Regional Response 

Teams, and Area Committees. 

Additionally, the letter to the Governors 

of Washington and Oregon stated that 

Coast Guard and EPA will continue to 

work in close coordination with state 

and local governments, affected local 

industries, Regional Response Teams 

and Area Committees to maintain a 

level of equipment able to best protect 

all localities. 

4. Regional Approach for Moving 

Response Assets 

Two comments suggested that the 

Coast Guard and EPA develop a regional 

approach rather than one nationwide 

rule for moving response assets. The 

comments encouraged developing 

regional strategies to ensure sufficient 

coverage remains in those regions before 

moving oil spill response assets outside 

of those regions. Another comment 

specifically requested utilizing Regional 

Response Teams for such a regional 

approach. 

Response: The Coast Guard and EPA 

agree that the decision to actually move 

response assets is best made at the local 

and regional level. In order to allow 

those local and regional decisions to be 

made, however, this nationwide rule is 

necessary to temporarily suspend 

certain regulatory response time 

requirements. As stated in the rule, the 

Coast Guard and EPA coordinate and 

consult with Regional Response Teams 

and Area Committees, which include 

State representatives, for such decisions. 

Additionally, in a letter to the 

Governors of Washington and Oregon, 

the Coast Guard and EPA specifically 

stated: ‘‘If there were to be a scenario in 

which more response resources were 

needed in the Gulf, we would work 

closely with [state and local 

governments and affected local 

industries] and the Regional Response 

Teams and Area Committees, to ensure 

that we do not deploy equipment or 

personnel that would result in the loss 

of response capability below worst case 

and maximum most probable discharge 

response time requirements in the 

Pacific Northwest.’’ 

5. Plan Holders Included in the Decision 

To Move Assets 

At least one comment requested that 

plan holders be included in any 

discussion regarding movement of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 79963 

response assets to the Gulf or any future 

Spill of National Significance. 

Response: The rule only addresses 

relocating assets in response to the 

Deepwater Horizon SONS. The Coast 

Guard and EPA agree that plan holders 

should be included in discussions 

regarding movement of response assets 

in response to the Deepwater Horizon 

SONS. That is why, as stated in the rule, 

any such relocation of assets is done 

only through coordination with the 

cognizant COTPs and Regional 

Response Teams and Area Committees, 

which include oil spill response 

community and plan holder 

representatives. 

6. State Consultation 

One comment requested that Coast 

Guard and EPA formally consult with 

state environmental agencies prior to 

approving the deployment of additional 

equipment and personnel out of their 

region that would result in the loss of 

response capability below the federal 

Maximum Most Probable Discharge 

standards. 

Response: As stated in the rule, States 

are involved in any decisions about 

equipment and personnel deployment. 

The Coast Guard and EPA stated that we 

coordinate and consult with Regional 

Response Teams and Area Committees, 

which include State representatives, for 

such decisions. Additionally, in the 

letter to the Governors of Washington 

and Oregon, the Coast Guard and EPA 

stated that we will continue to work in 

close coordination with state and local 

governments and affected local 

industries. 

7. Other Federal Laws and State and 

Local Laws 

Several comments noted that the rule 

addresses only Coast Guard and EPA 

requirements, but that plan holders are 

also covered by other Federal regulatory 

requirements as well as State and local 

laws. One comment suggested revising 

the rule to address other Federal 

requirements as well as State and local 

requirements. Another comment 

suggested creating a permanent rule to 

address all Federal and State response 

standards for use in such emergency 

situations. This comment suggested 

working with States and Congress for a 

legislatively established emergency 

procedure for such situations. 

Response: The Coast Guard and EPA 

coordinated on the rule because many 

oil spill response plans address both 

Coast Guard and EPA oil spill response 

requirements. The rule was not meant to 

address all Federal requirements or 

State requirements. In the rule, we 

specifically stated that States are 

authorized to establish oil spill response 

standards more stringent than Coast 

Guard and EPA, and Coast Guard and 

EPA coordinate and consult with State 

representatives, regarding 

implementation of the rule. The rule 

will expire on December 31, 2010. The 

Coast Guard and EPA are considering 

whether a permanent rule addressing 

this issue is necessary, but would 

initiate a separate rulemaking for any 

such permanent rule. 

8. Tribal Implications 

The MTC disagreed with the finding 

in the rule that the rule does not have 

tribal implications under EO 13175 

because tribal marine resources could be 

significantly jeopardized by an 

uncontained oil spill due to the 

depletion of government and private oil 

spill response assets in this region. 

Response: In a letter to the MTC dated 

August 24, 2010, (available in the 

docket), the Coast Guard reaffirmed its 

determination that the rule does not 

have any tribal implications because the 

rule does not require the movement of 

any oil spill response resources away 

from current locations. Additionally, the 

letter noted that the MTC has been 

appointed to the Northwest Area 

Committee and will be part of any 

decision on whether to relocate oil spill 

response resources away from that 

Committee’s area. EPA has also 

reaffirmed, through a letter to the MTC 

dated October 25, 2010, its 

determination that the rule does not 

have any tribal implications because the 

rule does not require the movement of 

any oil spill response resources away 

from current locations. 

9. Plan Holder Input Into the Rule 

One commenter felt that plan holders 

did not have sufficient input into the 

development of the rule. 

Response: The Coast Guard and EPA 

note that the rule was issued as an 

emergency rulemaking in response to 

the exigent circumstances presented by 

the Deepwater Horizon SONS. Plan 

holders were given an opportunity to 

comment on the rule during the 

comment period. All comments, 

materials and evidence received on the 

rule are discussed above in this section. 

B. Alternative Arrangements Under 

NEPA 

Coast Guard and DHS, with the 

assistance of EPA, consulted with CEQ 

pursuant to NEPA regulations found in 

40 CFR 1506.11 to develop alternative 

NEPA arrangements for implementation 

of this rule. These alternative 

arrangements, which take the place of 

an Environmental Impact Statement, 

provide that Coast Guard and DHS will 

consider the potential for significant 

impacts to the human environment from 

this rule during implementation of the 

rule. The Alternative Arrangements 

were posted to the Deepwater Horizon 

Web site (http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/ 

laws/gc_1283521666674.shtm) on July 

13, 2010, and remain available to 

interested parties at this Web site. The 

Alternative Arrangements are also 

available in the docket as indicated 

under ADDRESSES above. 

Under the alternative arrangements, 

each COTP consults with the Area 

Committee and pertinent Regional 

Response Teams to determine what 

assets may be made available to address 

the SONS using the Area Contingency 

Plans (ACP). Each ACP includes an 

annex containing a Fish and Wildlife 

and Sensitive Environments Plan 

prepared in consultation with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA 

and other interested natural resource 

management agencies and parties 

(including coastal zone management 

agencies). The annex addresses fish and 

wildlife resources and their habitat, and 

other areas the Area Committee 

recommends be considered sensitive 

environments. The annex provides the 

information and procedures to 

immediately and effectively respond to 

discharges that may adversely affect fish 

and wildlife and their habitat and 

sensitive environments. Determination 

of the needed response resources 

considers local and regional factors such 

as environmental risks, logistic 

limitations, and unique local or regional 

circumstances. 

The determination by each COTP 

regarding available assets in the area 

includes considering the development 

of equipment relocation and backfilling 

(i.e., cascade plans) which will expand 

the interlocking response back up of the 

various OSROs, and integrates military 

resources which have previously been 

kept independent of supporting the 

civilian OSROs. The COTP also 

considers available information on the 

availability of current response 

resources, particularly in areas with 

large vessel traffic lanes, heavy vessel 

traffic, oil refineries, oil storage and 

pipeline facilities, seasonal risks 

associated with weather, and trends 

associated with weather, currents and 

tides. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES
79964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: December 2, 2010. 

Robert Papp, 

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32018 Filed 12–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P; 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 80 

[EPA EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161; FRL–9241– 

4] 

RIN 2060–AQ31 

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel 

Additives: Modifications to Renewable 

Fuel Standard Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final r ule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing amendments 

to certain of the Renewable Fuel 

Standard program regulations that were 

published on March 26, 2010, and that 

took effect on July 1, 2010 (‘‘the RFS2 

regulations’’). Following publication of 

the RFS2 regulations, promulgated in 

response to the requirements of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007, EPA discovered some technical 

errors and areas within the final RFS2 

regulations that could benefit from 

clarification or modification. In a direct 

final rule and parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking published on May 

10, 2010, EPA included language to 

amend the regulations to make the 

appropriate corrections, clarifications, 

and modifications. However, EPA 

received adverse comment on a few 

provisions in the direct final rule and, 

on June 30, 2010, withdrew those 

provisions prior to their effective date of 

July 1, 2010. In today’s action, EPA is 

addressing the comments received on 

the portions of the direct final rule that 

were withdrawn and is taking final 

action regarding the withdrawn 

provisions based on consideration of the 

comments received. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005–0161. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

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

site. 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, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

generally available either electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Air and Radiation 

Docket, ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2005– 

0161, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room 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 Air 

and Radiation Docket is (202) 566–9744. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Brachtl, Compliance and 

Innovative Strategies Division, Office of 

Transportation and Air Quality (6405J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 343–9473; fax 

number: (202) 343–2802; e-mail 

address: brachtl.megan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Entities potentially affected by this 

final rule include those involved with 

the production, importation, 

distribution, and sale of transportation 

fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel 

and renewable fuels such as ethanol and 

biodiesel. Regulated categories and 

entities affected by this action include: 

Category NAICS codesa SIC codesb Examples of potentially regulated parties 

Industry ........................................ 324110 2911 Petroleum refiners, importers. 

Industry ........................................ 325193 2869 Ethyl alcohol manufacturers. 

Industry ........................................ 325199 2869 Other basic organic chemical manufacturers. 

Industry ........................................ 424690 5169 Chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ........................................ 424710 5171 Petroleum bulk stations and terminals. 

Industry ........................................ 424720 5172 Petroleum and petroleum products merchant wholesalers. 

Industry ........................................ 454319 5989 Other fuel dealers. 

a North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). 

bStandard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

activities would be regulated by this 

action, you should carefully examine 

the applicability criteria of Part 80, 

subpart M of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section above. 

II. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) 

Program Amendments 

EPA issued final regulations 

implementing changes to the Renewable 

Fuel Standard program required by 

EISA on March 26, 2010, at 75 FR 14670 

(‘‘the RFS2 regulations’’). Following 

publication of the RFS2 regulations, 

EPA discovered some technical errors 

and areas that could benefit from 

clarification or modification and, in 

parallel proposed and direct final rules 

published on May 10, 2010 (75 FR 

26049, 75 FR 26026), included 

amendments to the regulations to 

correct these deficiencies. EPA received 

adverse comment on a few of the 

amendments and therefore, on June 30, 

2010, withdrew the portions of the 

direct final rule that were the subject of 

adverse comment (75 FR 37733). The 

withdrawn provisions consist of the 

following: 

—Certain of the amendments to 

§ 80.1401, specifically those which 

moved the definitions of ‘‘actual peak 

capacity,’’ ‘‘baseline volume,’’ and 

‘‘permitted capacity’’ from 

§ 80.1403(a), revised the definition of 

‘‘actual peak capacity’’ to clarify how 

it is calculated, and revised the 

definition of ‘‘permitted capacity’’ to 

clarify the dates by which permits 

used to establish a facility’s permitted 

capacity must have been issued or 

revised; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with RULES