65680 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

Industrial Boulevard in Becker, 

Sherburne County, Minnesota, shall not 

cause or permit the emission of SO2

from stack SV001 (serving Units 1 and 

2) to exceed 0.050 lbs/MMBTU as a 30- 

day rolling average. 

(2) On and after the 30-boileroperating-day period ending on May 31, 

2017, the owners and operators of the 

facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in 

Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, 

shall not cause or permit the emission 

of SO2 from Unit 3 to exceed 0.29 lbs/ 

MMBTU as a 30-day rolling average. 

(3) The owners and operators of the 

facility at 13999 Industrial Boulevard in 

Becker, Sherburne County, Minnesota, 

shall operate continuous SO2 emission 

monitoring systems in compliance with 

40 CFR part 75, and the data from this 

emission monitoring shall be used to 

determine compliance with the limits in 

this paragraph (e). 

(4) For each boiler operating day, 

compliance with the 30-day average 

limitations in paragraphs (e)(1) and 

(e)(2) of this section shall be determined 

by summing total emissions in pounds 

for the period consisting of the day and 

the preceding 29 successive boiler 

operating days, summing total heat 

input in MMBTU for the same period, 

and computing the ratio of these sums 

in lbs/MMBTU. Boiler operating day is 

used to mean a 24-hour period between 

12 midnight and the following midnight 

during which any fuel is combusted at 

any time in the steam-generating unit. It 

is not necessary for fuel to be combusted 

the entire 24-hour period. A boiler 

operating day with respect to the 

limitation in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section shall be a day in which fuel is 

combusted in either Unit 1 or Unit 2. 

Bias adjustments provided for under 40 

CFR part 75 appendix A shall be 

applied. Substitute data provided for 

under 40 CFR part 75 subpart D shall 

not be used. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27168 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9936–16- 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting air emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Oregon made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 27, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0259, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Kristin Hall, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT— 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Kristin Hall, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015– 

0259. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http://

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, the EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: 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 the disclosure of which 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is 

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65681 

1NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

2 76 FR 48208. 

3CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

4CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

5See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F; 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 6CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011). 7 Id. 

8 Id. 9 Id. 

addresses the first two sub-elements of 

the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These subelements require that each SIP for a new 

or revised standard contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. We 

note that the EPA has addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

eastern portion of the United States in 

several past regulatory actions.1 We 

most recently promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 

of the United States.2 CSAPR addressed 

multiple national ambient air quality 

standards, but did not address the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard.3

In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air 

quality analyses to determine whether 

an eastern state’s contribution to 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute to 

or interfere with maintenance of the 

standard in those downwind areas. If a 

state exceeded that threshold, the state’s 

emissions were further evaluated, taking 

into account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary. For the reasons stated below, 

we believe it is appropriate to use the 

same approach we used in CSAPR to 

establish an air quality screening 

threshold for the evaluation of interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard. 

In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.4 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states, 

while the use of higher thresholds 

would exclude increasingly larger 

percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded.5 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

a relatively lower one-percent threshold 

because there are adverse health 

impacts associated with ambient ozone 

even at low levels.6 The EPA also 

determined that a lower threshold such 

as 0.5 percent would result in modest 

increases in the overall percentages of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution transport captured relative to 

the amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 

percent threshold could lead to 

emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 7

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.8 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.9

II. State Submittal 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require that revisions to a 

SIP be adopted by the state after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, and 

an opportunity for a public hearing. 

On June 28, 2010, Oregon made a 

submittal to address the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the ozone NAAQS. 

The Oregon submittal included public 

process documentation on the interstate 

transport submittal, including a duly 

noticed public hearing held on 

December 22, 2009. Oregon 

subsequently notified the EPA that a 

clerical error was made and that all 

interstate transport SIP documents had 

not been attached to the June 28, 2010 

cover letter. The State transmitted the 

remaining documents to the EPA on 

December 23, 2010. We find that the 

process followed by Oregon in adopting 

the SIP submittal complies with the 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

the EPA’s implementing regulations. 

With respect to the requirements in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the 

Oregon submittal stated that the area of 

highest Oregon emission densities 

(Portland metropolitan area) is 

separated from the nearest ozone 

nonattainment areas (in Nevada and 

California) by significant distances and 

major mountain ranges up to 

approximately 7,000 feet. The submittal 

noted that the Portland metropolitan 

area shares a common airshed with 

Vancouver, Washington metropolitan 

area. This bi-state airshed historically 

violated the one-hour ozone standard 

and emissions in the area have been 

managed under the Portland-Vancouver 

ozone maintenance plan. The PortlandVancouver area is in attainment with 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 

The Oregon submittal stated that 

meteorology and prevailing wind 

direction, the effect of significant 

topography on transport of pollutants, 

and characteristics of emissions sources 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of 

Availability of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS)). 11 80 FR 46271 at page 46276, Table 3. 

in states bordering Oregon that are 

experiencing ozone attainment 

problems (California and Nevada) 

support a finding that emissions from 

Oregon sources do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment in, or 

interfere with maintenance of, the 2008 

ozone NAAQS in these nearby states. 

The Oregon submittal also asserted that 

the Oregon SIP provides authority to 

participate in regional air planning, 

collaborate with other states as 

necessary to address regional ozone 

issues should they arise, and control 

emissions from Oregon sources if 

necessary. 

The Oregon submittal also stated that 

Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality consulted with air agencies in 

Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and 

California and other agencies to evaluate 

case-specific air quality problems that 

may involve regional transport of air 

pollution. These staff-level 

communications indicated no impacts 

on ozone concentrations in other states 

caused by transport from Oregon, and 

the submittal stated that this provided 

additional support for Oregon’s 

assertion that emissions from Oregon 

sources do not significantly contribute 

to nonattainment in or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other states. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that applies the CSAPR approach to 

contribution projections for the year 

2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.10 The moderate area 

attainment date for the 2008 ozone 

standard is July 11, 2018. In order to 

demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future 

year to model for the purpose of 

examining interstate transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2017 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 

used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from all sources in each state to the 

2017 projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. The 

NODA and the supporting technical 

support documents have been included 

in the docket for this SIP action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most upto-date information the EPA has 

developed to inform our analysis of 

upwind state linkages to downwind air 

quality problems. For purposes of 

evaluating Oregon’s interstate transport 

SIP with respect to the 2008 8-hour 

ozone standard, the EPA is proposing 

that states whose contributions are less 

than one percent to downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors are considered nonsignificant. The modeling indicates that 

Oregon’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind nonattainment site 

is 0.65 ppb and Oregon’s largest 

contribution to any projected downwind 

maintenance-only site is 0.65 ppb.11

These values are below the one percent 

screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and 

therefore there are no identified linkages 

between Oregon and 2017 downwind 

projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites. Note that the EPA 

has not done an assessment to 

determine the applicability of the one 

percent screening threshold for western 

states that contribute above the one 

percent threshold. There may be 

additional considerations that may 

impact regulatory decisions regarding 

‘‘potential’’ linkages in the west 

identified by the modeling. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, Oregon 

concluded based on its own technical 

analysis that emissions from the State 

do not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

in any other state. The EPA’s modeling, 

discussed in Section III, confirms this 

finding. Based on the modeling data and 

the information and analysis provided 

in Oregon’s June 28, 2010 submittal, we 

are proposing to approve the submittal 

for purposes of meeting the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 

2008 ozone standard. The EPA’s 

modeling confirms the results of the 

State’s analysis: Oregon does not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard 

in any other state. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• 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 se.); 

• 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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• Does not provide the 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). 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65683 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 15, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27165 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568; FRL–9917–70– 

Region 3] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

Maryland 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) proposes to update a 

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Air Regulations. Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of States’ seaward boundaries 

must be updated periodically to remain 

consistent with the requirements of the 

corresponding onshore area (COA), as 

mandated by the Clean Air Act, as 

amended in 1990 (the Act). The portion 

of the OCS air regulations that is being 

updated pertains to the requirements for 

OCS sources for which Maryland is the 

designated COA. In the Final Rules 

section of this Federal Register, EPA is 

taking this action as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this action, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by November 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0568 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: campbell.dave@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0568, 

Dave Campbell, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, 

Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2014– 

0568. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Maryland Department of 

the Environment, 1800 Washington 

Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, 

Maryland 21230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cathleen Van Osten, (215) 814–2746, or 

by email at vanosten.cathleen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

information provided in the direct final 

action, with the same title, that is 

located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ 

section of this Federal Register 

publication. 

Dated: March 10, 2015 

William C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received for publication by the Office of the 

Federal Register on October 21, 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27159 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 300 

[Docket No. 150902807–5949–01] 

RIN 0648–BE99 

International Fisheries; Pacific Tuna 

Fisheries; Vessel Register Required 

Information, International Maritime 

Organization Numbering Scheme 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS