Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1141 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not 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, Lead. 

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

Dated: December 21, 2015. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–33303 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2015–0783; FRL–9940–79– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Arkansas; New 

Mexico; Oklahoma; Disapproval of 

Greenhouse Gas Biomass Deferral, 

Step 2 and Minor Source Permitting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to 

disapprove severable portions of the 

February 6, 2012 Oklahoma State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal 

that are now inconsistent with federal 

laws due to intervening decisions by the 

United States Courts and EPA 

rulemaking. This submittal establishes 

Minor New Source Review permitting 

requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and includes Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting provisions for sources that 

are classified as major, and, thus, 

required to obtain a PSD permit, based 

solely on their potential GHG emissions. 

The PSD permitting provisions also 

require a PSD permit for modifications 

of otherwise major sources because they 

increased only GHG above applicable 

levels. Additionally, we are proposing 

to disapprove severable portions of SIP 

submittals for the States of Arkansas, 

New Mexico, and Oklahoma addressing 

the EPA’s July 20, 2011 rule deferring 

PSD requirements for carbon dioxide 

(CO2) emissions from bioenergy and 

other biogenic sources (‘‘Biomass 

Deferral’’). We are proposing to 

disapprove the provisions adopting the 

Biomass Deferral because the deferral 

has expired, so the provisions are no 

longer consistent with federal laws. The 

EPA is proposing this disapproval under 

section 110 and part C of the Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 10, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2015–0783, at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

The EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit electronically any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, please 

contact Ms. Adina Wiley, (214) 665– 

2115, wiley.adina@epa.gov. For the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

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

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Adina Wiley, (214) 665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with Ms. Adina Wiley or 

Mr. Bill Deese at 214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

the EPA. 

I. Background 

A. The February 6, 2012 Oklahoma SIP 

Submittal 

On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma 

permitting programs for approval by the 

EPA into the Oklahoma SIP, including 

new Minor New Source Review (NSR) 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and 

revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program 

at OAC 252:100–8–31 (the definition of 

‘‘subject to regulation’’) to require PSD 

permits for sources solely because of 

GHG emissions. In addition, the 

submittal included many other updates 

to the Oklahoma SIP, unrelated to GHG 

permitting, which the EPA is addressing 

in separate actions. However, today’s 

action only addresses the provisions for 

GHG permitting that are inconsistent 

with federal laws. 

B. The November 6, 2012 Arkansas SIP 

Submittal 

On November 6, 2012, Arkansas 

submitted revisions to the Arkansas 

Pollution Control and Ecology 

Commission’s Regulations, Chapters 2, 4 

and 9 for approval by the EPA into the 

Arkansas SIP. The EPA finalized our 

approval of the submitted revisions to 

the Arkansas PSD program at Regulation 

19, Chapter 9 that provide the State of 

Arkansas with the authority to issue 

PSD permits governing GHG emissions 

on April 2, 2013, at 63 FR 19596. The 

EPA finalized approval of the other 

parts of the submittal on March 4, 2015, 

with the exception of the severable 

components of the submittal at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 4 specific to the 

Arkansas Minor NSR program, and the 

severable portion of the definition of 

‘‘CO2 Equivalent Emissions’’ 

implementing the Biomass Deferral at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 2. Today’s action 

only addresses the severable portion of 

the definition of ‘‘CO2 Equivalent 

Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, Chapter 2 

submitted on November 6, 2012. The 

EPA will address the revisions to the 

Arkansas Minor NSR program at 

Regulation 19, Chapter 4 in a separate 

action, at a later date. 

C. The January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP 

Submittal 

On January 8, 2013, New Mexico 

submitted regulations specific to the 

New Mexico PSD permitting program 

for approval by the EPA into the New 

Mexico SIP. The EPA finalized approval 

of a portion of this submittal pertaining 

to plantwide applicability limits for 

GHGs on December 11, 2013, at 78 FR 

75253. The submittal also included 

revisions to the PSD permitting 

provisions that were adopted on January 

7, 2013, at 20.2.74 NMAC to defer the 

application of the PSD requirements to 

CO2 emissions from bioenergy and other 

biogenic stationary sources consistent 

with the Biomass Deferral. The revisions 

to 20.2.74 NMAC to adopt the Biomass 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1142 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

1Emissions of CO2 from a stationary source 

directly resulting from the combustion or 

decomposition of biologically-based materials other 

than fossil fuels and mineral sources of carbon (e.g., 

calcium carbonate) and biologically-based material 

(nonfossilized and biodegradable organic material 

originating from plants, animals or micro-organisms 

[including products, by-products, residues and 

waste from agriculture, forestry and related 

industries as well as the nonfossilized and 

biodegradable organic fractions of industrial and 

municipal wastes, including gases and liquids 

recovered from the decomposition of non-fossilized 

and biodegradable organic material]). 

Deferral that are the subject of today’s 

rulemaking are the only portions of the 

submittal remaining before the EPA for 

review and approval. 

D. The January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP 

Submittal 

On January 18, 2013, Oklahoma 

submitted revisions to the Oklahoma 

regulations for approval by the EPA into 

the Oklahoma SIP that included 

provisions in the general definitions at 

OAC 252:100–1–3 and OAC 252:100–8– 

31 to defer the application of the PSD 

requirements to biogenic CO2 emissions 

from bioenergy and other biogenic 

stationary sources that are the subject of 

today’s rulemaking. The submittal also 

included many other updates to the 

Oklahoma SIP which the EPA is 

addressing in separate actions. 

II. The EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Oklahoma SIP Submission 

Addressing Permitting of GHG 

Emissions in Oklahoma 

On February 6, 2012, the Oklahoma 

Department of Environmental Quality 

submitted a revision to the Oklahoma 

SIP that included, among other things, 

provisions to regulate the emissions of 

GHGs in construction permitting 

programs. The revisions to the 

Oklahoma Minor Source Permitting 

Program at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 

establish a mechanism for sources in 

Oklahoma to take enforceable emissions 

limitations on GHGs to avoid becoming 

a major source for GHG emissions under 

the Oklahoma PSD program. The 

revisions to the Oklahoma PSD program 

at OAC 252:100–8–31 adopted a new 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ to 

identify when emissions of GHGs would 

be regulated under the PSD program. 

The revisions to the Oklahoma PSD 

program submitted were consistent with 

the EPA’s June 3, 2010, final rule 

‘‘Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule’’ (75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred 

to as the ‘‘Tailoring Rule’’). 

The Tailoring Rule phased in 

permitting requirements for GHG 

emissions from stationary sources under 

the CAA PSD and title V permitting 

programs. In Step 1 of the Tailoring 

Rule, which began on January 2, 2011, 

the EPA limited application of PSD and 

title V requirements to sources of GHG 

emissions only if they were subject to 

PSD or title V ‘‘anyway’’ due to their 

emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs. These sources are referred to as 

‘‘anyway sources.’’ In Step 2 of the 

Tailoring Rule, which began on July 1, 

2011, the PSD and title V permitting 

requirements under the CAA applied to 

some sources that were classified as 

major, and, thus, required to obtain a 

permit, based solely on their GHG 

emissions or potential to emit GHGs, 

and to modifications of otherwise major 

sources that required a PSD permit 

because they increased only GHG 

emissions above the level in the EPA 

regulations. We generally describe the 

sources covered by PSD during Step 2 

of the Tailoring Rule as ‘‘Step 2 

sources.’’ 

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme 

Court issued a decision in Utility Air 

Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 

S. Ct. 2427, addressing the application 

of PSD and title V permitting 

requirements to GHG emissions. The 

U.S. Supreme Court held that the EPA 

may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant 

for the specific purpose of determining 

whether a source is a major source (or 

a modification thereof) and thus 

required to obtain a PSD or title V 

permit. The Court also said that the EPA 

could continue to require that PSD 

permits, otherwise required based on 

emissions of pollutants other than 

GHGs, contain limitations on GHG 

emissions based on the application of 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT). With respect to PSD, the ruling 

effectively upheld PSD permitting 

requirements for GHG emissions under 

Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule for ‘‘anyway 

sources,’’ and invalidated PSD 

permitting requirements for Step 2 

sources. 

In accordance with the Supreme 

Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (the DC Circuit) issued 

an Amended Judgment vacating the 

regulations that implemented Step 2 of 

the Tailoring Rule, but not the 

regulations that implement Step 1 of 

that rule. With respect to Step 2 sources, 

the DC Circuit’s amended judgment 

ordered that the EPA regulations under 

review (including 40 CFR 

51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 

52.21(b)(49)(v)) be vacated ‘‘to the 

extent they require a stationary source 

to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse 

gases are the only pollutant (i) that the 

source emits or has the potential to emit 

above the applicable major source 

thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a 

significant emissions increase from a 

modification.’’ 

The EPA promulgated a final rule on 

August 19, 2015, removing the PSD 

permitting provisions for Step 2 sources 

from the federal regulations that the DC 

Circuit specifically identified as vacated 

(40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 

52.21(b)(49)(v)). Consistent with our 

August 19, 2015 final rule, the EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the submitted 

revisions at OAC 252:100–7–2.1 and 

OAC 252:100–8–31 that pertain to the 

minor source permitting of GHGs and 

the PSD permitting of Step 2 sources. 

B. SIP Submissions Addressing the GHG 

Biomass Deferral in Arkansas, New 

Mexico and Oklahoma 

On July 20, 2011, the EPA finalized a 

rulemaking entitled ‘‘Deferral for CO2

Emissions From Bioenergy and Other 

Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Title V Programs’’. (76 FR 43490) 

(‘‘Biomass Deferral’’). This rule deferred 

(for three years) the applicability of PSD 

and title V requirements CO2 emissions 

from biogenic sources.1 On July 12, 

2013, the DC Circuit, in Center for 

Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 

401, vacated the provisions of the 

Biomass Deferral. Due to a series of 

extension requests and rehearing 

proceedings, the court did not issue its 

mandate making the vacatur effective 

until August 10, 2015. However, the 

Biomass Deferral expired by its own 

terms on July 21, 2014. For both 

reasons, the Biomass Deferral is no 

longer applicable under federal laws. 

Our analysis, available in our 

Technical Support Document in the 

rulemaking docket, finds that the States 

of Arkansas, New Mexico and 

Oklahoma each adopted and submitted 

as revisions to their respective SIPs, 

provisions that were substantively 

consistent with the requirements of the 

EPA’s now-expired Biomass Deferral. 

However, because the deferral expired 

on July 21, 2014, and the court issued 

its mandate, these provisions are no 

longer available for use under federal 

PSD regulations and should not be 

approved into a state’s PSD SIP. For that 

reason, we are proposing to disapprove 

these provisions. 

C. Evaluation of the Submitted 

Revisions Under Section 110 of the CAA 

The EPA has an obligation under 

section 110 of the CAA to act on 

submitted SIP revisions unless these 

revisions are withdrawn by the State. 

Because these provisions have not yet 

been withdrawn from our consideration, 

the EPA has a duty to act on the 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 1143 

submitted provisions pertaining to the 

PSD permitting of Step 2 sources in the 

Oklahoma SIP and the provisions 

incorporating the now-expired Biomass 

Deferral into the Arkansas, New Mexico 

and Oklahoma SIPs. Our proposed 

action today will disapprove these 

provisions because the provisions are no 

longer valid under federal law or 

consistent with federal regulations; as 

such, our action today will not 

undermine the respective SIPs, PSD 

programs, or any other requirement of 

the CAA. 

III. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to disapprove 

severable portions of the February 6, 

2012 Oklahoma SIP submittal 

establishing GHG permitting 

requirements for minor sources and 

Step 2 PSD sources. The EPA has made 

the preliminary determination that these 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP should be 

disapproved because they establish 

permitting requirements that are 

inconsistent with federal laws. 

Therefore, under section 110 and part C 

of the Act, and for the reasons presented 

above, the EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the following revisions: 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP establishing Minor NSR 

GHG permitting requirements at OAC 

252:100–7–2.1 as submitted on February 

6, 2012; and 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Oklahoma PSD program in OAC 

252:100–8–31 establishing PSD 

permitting requirements for Step 2 

sources at paragraph (E) of the 

definition of ‘‘subject to regulation’’ as 

submitted on February 6, 2012. 

We are also proposing to disapprove 

severable portions of the November 6, 

2012 Arkansas SIP submittal, the 

January 8, 2013 New Mexico SIP, and 

the January 18, 2013 Oklahoma SIP 

submittal that include the Biomass 

Deferral in the Arkansas, New Mexico, 

and Oklahoma PSD programs. The EPA 

has made the preliminary determination 

that these revisions to the Arkansas, 

New Mexico, and Oklahoma SIPs 

should be disapproved because the 

Biomass Deferral has expired and 

adoption or implementation of these 

provisions is no longer consistent with 

federal regulations for PSD permitting. 

Therefore, under section 110 and part C 

of the Act, and for the reasons presented 

above, the EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the following revisions: 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Arkansas SIP definition of ‘‘CO2

Equivalent Emissions’’ at Regulation 19, 

Chapter 2 to implement the Biomass 

Deferral as submitted on November 6, 

2012; and 

• Substantive revisions to the New 

Mexico SIP definition of ‘‘Subject to 

Regulation’’ at 20.2.74.7 (AZ)(2)(a) 

NMAC to implement the Biomass 

Deferral as submitted on January 8, 

2013. 

• Substantive revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP definitions of ‘‘carbon 

dioxide equivalent emissions’’ at OAC 

252:100–1–3 and ‘‘subject to regulation’’ 

at OAC 252:100–8–31 as submitted on 

January 18, 2013. 

The EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the revisions listed because the 

submitted provisions are no longer 

consistent with federal laws. There will 

be no sanctions or punitive measures 

taken as a result of our finalization of 

this proposed disapproval. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, 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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to disapprove state law 

as not meeting Federal requirements for 

the regulation and permitting of GHG 

emissions. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

PRA. There is no burden imposed under 

the PRA because this action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the RFA. This action will not 

impose any requirements on small 

entities. This action proposes to 

disapprove submitted revisions that are 

no longer consistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions, and therefore will have 

no impact on small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

unfunded mandate as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does 

not significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. The action imposes no 

enforceable duty on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

This action proposes to disapprove 

submitted revisions that are no longer 

consistent with federal laws for the 

regulation and permitting of GHG 

emissions, and therefore will have no 

impact on small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. This action proposes to 

disapprove provisions of state law that 

are no longer consistent with federal 

laws for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions; there are no 

requirements or responsibilities added 

or removed from Indian Tribal 

Governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 as applying only to those 

regulatory actions that concern 

environmental health or safety risks that 

the EPA has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, per 

the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory 

action’’ in section 2–202 of the 

Executive Order. This action is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it disapproves state permitting 

provisions that are inconsistent with 

federal laws for the regulation and 

permitting of GHG emissions. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1144 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 6 / Monday, January 11, 2016 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

The EPA believes the human health or 

environmental risk addressed by this 

action will not have potential 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority, low-income or indigenous 

populations. This action is not subject 

to Executive Order 12898 because it 

disapproves state permitting provisions 

that are inconsistent with federal laws 

for the regulation and permitting of 

GHG emissions. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 17, 2015. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2015–33098 Filed 1–8–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0084; FRL–9940–88– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval and Air Quality 

Designation; GA; Redesignation of the 

Atlanta, GA, 1997 Annual PM2.5

Nonattainment Area to Attainment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On August 30, 2012, the 

Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources, through the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division (GA 

EPD), submitted a request for the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to redesignate the Atlanta, Georgia, fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) nonattainment 

area (hereafter referred to as the 

‘‘Atlanta Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’) to attainment 

for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) 

and to approve a state implementation 

plan (SIP) revision containing a 

maintenance plan for the Atlanta Area. 

EPA is proposing to determine that the 

Atlanta Area is continuing to attain the 

1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS; to approve 

Georgia’s plan for maintaining the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Atlanta 

Area (maintenance plan), including the 

associated motor vehicle emission 

budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides 

(NOX) and PM2.5 for the year 2024, into 

Georgia’s SIP; and to redesignate the 

Atlanta Area to attainment for the 1997 

Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is also 

notifying the public of the status of 

EPA’s adequacy determination for the 

Atlanta Area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 1, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0084, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-ARMS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0084, 

Air Regulatory Management Section, Air 

Planning and Implementation Branch, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0084. EPA 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information 

may not be 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 at the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel 

Huey, Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Joel Huey 

may be reached by phone at (404) 562– 

9104 or via electronic mail at huey.joel@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. What are the actions EPA is proposing to 

take? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed actions? 

III. What are the criteria for redesignation? 

IV. Why is EPA proposing these actions? 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS