Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 82243 

small entities, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 

601(6). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public 

Law 104–4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, 

generally requires agencies to prepare a 

statement before proposing any rule that 

may result in an annual expenditure of 

$100 million or more by State, local, or 

tribal governments, or by the private 

sector. This rule will not result in any 

such expenditure, nor will it 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of 

congressional review of agency 

rulemaking under the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996, Public Law 104–121. This rule 

will not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, 

innovation, or the ability of United 

States-based companies to compete with 

foreign-based companies in domestic 

and import markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

The Department of State has reviewed 

this proposed rule to ensure its 

consistency with the regulatory 

philosophy and principles set forth in 

Executive Order 12866 and has 

determined that the benefits of this final 

regulation justify its costs. The 

Department does not consider this final 

rule to be an economically significant 

action within the scope of section 3(f)(1) 

of the Executive Order since it is not 

likely to have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or to 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local or 

tribal governments or communities. 

Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: 

Federalism 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Nor will the rule 

have federalism implications warranting 

the application of Executive Orders No. 

12372 and No. 13132. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

The Department has reviewed the 

regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to 

eliminate ambiguity, minimize 

litigation, establish clear legal 

standards, and reduce burden. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose information 

collection requirements under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35. 

List of Subjects in 22 CFR Part 40 

Aliens, Immigration,Visas. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Department of State amends 22 CFR 

part 40 as follows: 

PART 40—REGULATIONS 

PERTAINING TO BOTH 

NONIMMIGRANTS AND IMMIGRANTS 

UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 

NATIONALITY ACT, AS AMENDED 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 40 

will continue to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104. 

■ 2. Section 40.301 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 40.301 Waiver for ineligible 

nonimmigrants under INA 212(d)(3)(A) 

(a) Report or recommendation to 

Department. Except as provided in 

paragraph (b) of this section, consular 

officers may, upon their own initiative, 

and shall, upon the request of the 

Secretary of State or upon the request of 

the alien, submit a report to the 

Department for possible transmission to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security 

pursuant to the provisions of INA 

212(d)(3)(A) in the case of an alien who 

is classifiable as a nonimmigrant but 

who is known or believed by the 

consular officer to be ineligible to 

receive a nonimmigrant visa under the 

provisions of INA 212(a), other than 

INA 212(a) (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), 

(3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), (3)(E)(i), or (3)(E)(ii). 

* * * * * 

Dated: December 7, 2010. 

Janice L. Jacobs, 

Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32944 Filed 12–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket No. USCG–2010–1129] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zones; Moored Cruise Ships, 

Port of San Diego, CA 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary security zone 

regulation from December 21, 2010, 

through June 20, 2011. The security 

zones created by this rule will 

encompass all navigable waters 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor, within a 100 yard radius around 

any cruise ship that is moored at any 

berth within the San Diego port area 

inside the sea buoys bounding the Port 

of San Diego. This temporary final rule 

is necessary to provide for the safety of 

the cruise ship, vessels, and users of the 

waterway. Entry into these security 

zones will be prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) San Diego, or his or her 

designated representative. This rule will 

also suspend paragraph (b)(2) of 33 CFR 

165.1108, a related regulation. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 

December 21, 2010, through June 20, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this 

preamble as being available in the 

docket are part of docket USCG–2010– 

1129 and are available online by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–2010–1129 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

rule, call or e-mail Commander Michael 

B. Dolan, Prevention, Coast Guard 

Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; 

telephone 619–278–7261, e-mail 

Michael.B.Dolan@uscg.mil. If you have 

questions on viewing the docket, call 

Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
82244 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Information 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary final rule without prior 

notice and opportunity to comment 

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) 

of the Administrative Procedure Act 

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision 

authorizes an agency to issue a rule 

without prior notice and opportunity to 

comment when the agency for good 

cause finds that those procedures are 

‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest.’’ Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that 

good cause exists for not publishing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

with respect to this rule because it is 

contrary to the public interest not to 

issue a rule that is effective by 

December 21, 2010. Good cause exists to 

issue a temporary rule amending 

Section 165.1108, due to the opening of 

the Broadway cruise ship terminal and 

the anticipated arrival of cruise ships 

immediately thereafter, including on 

December 22, 2010. It is in the public 

interest to avoid the potential disruption 

that could be caused to major roadways 

just onshore. Moreover, security 

interests can continue to be maintained 

during the ensuing notice and comment 

rulemaking to amend Section 

165.1108(b)(2). In addition, this rule 

will relieve an unnecessary burden 

imposed by varying interpretations of 33 

CFR 165.1108(b)(2) while providing an 

effective security zone regulation in its 

place during a notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to amend § 165.1108(b)(2). 

As noted in the Discussion of the Rule 

section below, the Coast Guard will 

initiate a separate, notice-and-comment 

rulemaking proposing to amend 33 CFR 

165.1108(b)(2) while this temporary rule 

is in effect. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register because it is contrary to the 

public interest not to suspend 33 CFR 

165.1108(b)(2) and issue an effective 

temporary rule for moored cruise ships 

in San Diego Harbor by December 21, 

2010. 

Background and Purpose 

Based on experience with actual 

security zone enforcement operations, 

the COTP San Diego has concluded that 

a security zone encompassing all 

navigable waters, extending from the 

surface to the sea floor, within a 100 

yard radius around any cruise ship that 

is moored at any berth within the San 

Diego port area inside the sea buoys 

bounding the Port of San Diego would 

provide for the safety of the cruise ship, 

vessels, and users of the waterway. 

Discussion of Rule 

The Coast Guard is establishing a 

temporary security zone regulation from 

December 21, 2010, through June 20, 

2011. The security zones created by this 

temporary final rule will encompass all 

navigable waters, extending from the 

surface to the sea floor, within a 100 

yard radius around any cruise ship that 

is moored at any berth within the San 

Diego port area inside the sea buoys 

bounding the Port of San Diego. These 

security zones are necessary to provide 

for the safety of the cruise ship, vessels, 

and users of the waterway. Entry into 

these zones will be prohibited unless 

specifically authorized by the Captain of 

the Port (COTP) San Diego, or his or her 

designated representative. 

This temporary rule also suspends 

paragraph (b)(2) of 33 CFR 165.1108. 

The Coast Guard will initiate a separate, 

notice-and-comment rulemaking, to 

amend § 165.1108(b)(2) and clarify what 

is meant by its reference to ‘‘shore area.’’ 

The COTP has determined the security 

zones for moored cruise ships in San 

Diego Harbor need not include any land. 

Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

This rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, and does not 

require an assessment of potential costs 

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

Order. The Office of Management and 

Budget has not reviewed it under that 

Order. 

It is not ‘‘significant’’ under the 

regulatory policies and procedures of 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS). We expect the economic impact 

of this rule to be so minimal that full 

Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. 

Most of the entities likely to be affected 

are pleasure craft engaged in 

recreational activities and sightseeing. 

In addition, due to National Security 

interests, the implementation of this 

temporary security zone regulation is 

necessary for the protection of the 

United States and its people. The size of 

the zones is the minimum necessary to 

provide adequate protection for cruise 

ships. 

Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

small businesses, not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule will affect the following 

entities, some of which may be small 

entities: The owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit or anchor 

San Diego Bay within a 100-yard radius 

of cruise ships covered by this 

temporary final rule while it is effective 

from December 21, 2010 through June 

20, 2011. 

This security zone regulation will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities 

for the following reasons. Vessel traffic 

can pass safely around the zones. Before 

the arrival of any cruise ship that would 

activate a security zone under this 

temporary final rule, the Coast Guard 

will issue local notice to mariners 

(LNM) and broadcast notice to mariners 

(BNM) alerts via VHF–FM marine 

channel 16 before the security zone is 

enforced. 

Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the rule so that they can 

better evaluate its effects on them and 

participate in the rulemaking process. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce, or otherwise determine 

compliance with, Federal regulations to 

the Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of the Coast Guard, call 1– 

888–REG–FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The 

Coast Guard will not retaliate against 

small entities that question or complain 

about this rule or any policy or action 

of the Coast Guard. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 82245 

Collection of Information 

This rule calls for no new collection 

of information under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). 

Federalism 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132, 

Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 

effect on State or local governments and 

would either preempt State law or 

impose a substantial direct cost of 

compliance on them. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for Federalism. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or Tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule will not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

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 concluded this action is one of a 

category of actions which 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 the establishment of security 

zones. 

An environmental analysis checklist 

and a categorical exclusion 

determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 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. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

§ 165.1108 [Amended] 

■ 2. From December 21, 2010, through 

June 20, 2011, temporarily suspend 

§ 165.1108(b)(2). 

■ 3. From December 21, 2010, through 

June 20, 2011, temporarily add 

§ 165.T11–386 to read as follows: 

§ 165.T11–386 Temporary Security Zones; 

Moored Cruise Ships, Port of San Diego, 

California. 

(a) Definition. Cruise ship as used in 

this section means a passenger vessel, 

except for a ferry, 100 gross tons or 

more, authorized to carry more than 12 

passengers for hire; capable of making 

international voyages lasting more than 

24 hours, any part of which is on the 

high seas; and for which passengers are 

embarked, disembarked or at a port of 

call in the San Diego port. 

(b) Location. The following areas are 

security zones: All navigable waters, 

extending from the surface to the sea 

floor, within a 100 yard radius around 

any cruise ship that is moored at any 

berth within the San Diego port area 

inside the sea buoys bounding the Port 

of San Diego. 

(c) Regulations. Under regulations in 

33 CFR part 165, subpart D, entry into 

or remaining in the security zones 

created by this section is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Coast Guard 

Captain of the Port, San Diego or his 

designated representative. Persons 

desiring to transit the area of the 

security zones may contact the Captain 

of the Port at telephone number (619) 

683–6495 or on VHF–FM channel 16 

(156.8 MHz) to seek permission to 

transit the area. If permission is granted, 

all persons and vessels must comply 

with the instructions of the Captain of 

the Port or his or her designated 

representative. 

(d) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 

1231 and 50 U.S.C. 191, the authority 

for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
82246 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

(e) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted in the patrol and 

enforcement of the security zones by the 

San Diego Harbor Police. 

Dated: December 20, 2010. 

P.J. Hill, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port San Diego, CA. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32914 Filed 12–28–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107; FRL–9245–3] 

RIN 2060–AQ45 

Action To Ensure Authority To Issue 

Permits Under the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Program to 

Sources of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions: Federal Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is establishing a federal 

implementation plan (FIP) to apply in 

each of seven states that have not 

submitted by their established deadline 

a corrective state implementation plan 

(SIP) revision to apply their Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) program 

to sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). 

This action will ensure that a permitting 

authority—EPA—is available in these 

states as of January 2, 2011, when PSD 

becomes applicable to GHG-emitting 

sources, to issue preconstruction PSD 

permits and thereby facilitate 

construction or expansion. The seven 

states are: Arizona: Both Pinal County 

and Rest of State (excluding Maricopa 

County, Pima County, and Indian 

Country), Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, 

Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming. This 

action is related to EPA’s recently 

promulgated final rule, published on 

December 13, 2010, which we call the 

GHG PSD SIP call, and in which EPA 

made a finding of substantial 

inadequacy and issued a SIP call for 

these seven states and several others on 

grounds that their SIPs do not apply the 

PSD program to GHG-emitting sources. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

December 30, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this rulemaking under Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0107. 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 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West 

Building, 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 Docket is (202) 566– 

1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cheryl Vetter, Air Quality Policy 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (C504–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; 

telephone number: (919) 541–4391; fax 

number: (919) 541–5509; e-mail 

address: vetter.cheryl@epa.gov. 

For information related to a specific 

state, local, or tribal permitting 

authority, please contact the appropriate 

EPA regional office: 

EPA regional office Contact for regional office (person, mailing address, 

telephone number) Permitting authority 

I ............................................ Dave Conroy, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region 

1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 

02109–3912, (617) 918–1661.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, 

Rhode Island, and Vermont 

II ........................................... Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA 

Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 

10007–1866, (212) 637–3706.

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands. 

III .......................................... Kathleen Cox, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, (215) 814–2173.

District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

IV .......................................... Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, EPA Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303–3104, (404) 

562–9033.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. 

V ........................................... J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604–3507, (312) 886–1430.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

VI .......................................... Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section, EPA Region 

6, Fountain Place 12th Floor, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202–2733, (214) 665–6435.

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and 

Texas. 

VII ......................................... Mark Smith, Chief, Air Permitting and Compliance 

Branch, EPA Region 7, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, KS 66101, (913) 551–7876.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

VIII ........................................ Carl Daly, Unit Leader, Air Permitting, Monitoring & 

Modeling Unit, EPA Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 

Denver, CO 80202–1129, (303) 312–6416.

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

IX .......................................... Gerardo Rios, Chief, Permits Office, EPA Region 9, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 

972–3974.

Arizona, California, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, Indian Country within Region 9 and Navajo Nation, and 

Nevada. 

X ........................................... Nancy Helm, Manager, Federal and Delegated Air Programs Unit, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 

Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553–6908.

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES