Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51303 

1 ‘‘Federal funds’’ are funds that are subject to the 

contribution limitations, source prohibitions, and 

reporting requirements of the Act. 11 CFR 300.2(g). 

NW., Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–

1650 or (800) 424–9530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 

2002 (‘‘BCRA’’), Pub. L. 107–155, 116 

Stat. 81 (March 27, 2002), amended the 

Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 

as amended (the ‘‘Act’’), 2 U.S.C. 431 et 

seq., by requiring State, district and 

local party committees (‘‘State party 

committees’’) to pay the salaries and 

wages of employees who spend more 

than 25 percent of their compensated 

time per month on activities in 

connection with a Federal election 

entirely with Federal funds.1 2 U.S.C. 

431(20)(A)(iv) and 441i(b)(1). However, 

BCRA is silent on what type of funds 

State party committees must use to pay 

the salaries and wages of employees 

who spend some, but not more than 25 

percent, of their compensated time per 

month on activities in connection with 

a Federal election. The Commission 

promulgated 11 CFR 106.7(c)(1) and 

(d)(1)(i), and 300.33(c)(2) to address 

salaries and wages for both types of 

employees. Under these rules, State 

party committees may pay the salaries 

or wages of employees who spend 25 

percent or less of their compensated 

time each month on these activities 

entirely with funds that comply with 

State law. Id. 

In Shays v. FEC, 337 F. Supp. 2d 28 

(D.D.C. 2004), aff’d, No. 04–5352, 2005 

WL 1653053 (D.C. Cir. July 15, 2005) 

(‘‘Shays’’), the District Court invalidated 

section 300.33(c)(2) because it is 

inconsistent with BCRA. See Shays, 337 

F. Supp. 2d at 114; see also Chevron, 

U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 

467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984). Although 

the Court of Appeals affirmed the 

District Court’s invalidation of the rule, 

its basis differed from the District 

Court’s. The Court of Appeals found the 

Commission’s justification for the rule 

did not satisfy the requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 

551 et seq. Shays, No. 04–5352, slip op. 

at 62, 2005 WL 1653053 (D.C. Cir. July 

15, 2005). 

Before the Court of Appeals decision 

was issued, the Commission published 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

addressing State party committee 

payment of certain wages and salaries. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

State, District, and Local Party 

Committee Payment of Certain Salaries 

and Wages, 70 FR 23072 (May 4, 2005). 

The NPRM offered several proposals as 

to the proportion of Federal funds that 

must be used to pay the salaries and 

wages of State party committee 

employees who spends 25 percent or 

less of their compensated time in a 

month on activities in connection with 

a Federal election. The comment period 

for the NPRM ended on June 3, 2005, 

and a hearing was held on August 4, 

2005. Written comments and a 

transcript of the hearing can be found at 

http://www.fec.gov/law/ 

law_rulemakings.shtml#party_salaries. 

Witnesses at the hearing suggested 

that the Commission seek additional 

information that may assist the 

Commission in its decisionmaking. The 

Commission is reopening the comment 

period to allow all interested persons to 

submit information or comments that 

may be useful in this rulemaking in 

light of the Court of Appeals opinion. 

Dated: August 24, 2005. 

Michael E. Toner, 

Vice Chairman, Federal Election Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–17156 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6715–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA–311–0487; FRL–7962–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern particulate matter 

(PM–10) emissions from fugitive dust 

sources. We are proposing to approve 

amendments to local rules that regulate 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

September 29, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andrew 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 

or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical 

support documents (TSDs), and public 

comments at our Region IX office during 

normal business hours by appointment. 

You may also see copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions by appointment 

at the following locations: 

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 

Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726 

Copies of the rules may also be 

available via the Internet at http:// 

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. 

Please be advised that this is not an EPA 

Web site and may not contain the same 

version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Karen Irwin, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–

4116, irwin.karen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. Background to Today’s Proposal 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rules. 

D. Public comment and final action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rules Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 lists the individual rules 

addressed by this proposed rule with 

the dates that they were adopted by the 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 

and submitted to EPA by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB). The rules 

that are the subject of this action are 

collectively referred to as ‘‘Regulation 

VIII’’. 

51304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is under the 

jurisdiction of the SJVUAPCD. 

2Because the statutory RACM and BACM 

implementation deadlines have passed, RACM and 

BACM must be implemented ‘‘as soon as possible.’’

Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). 

EPA has interpreted this requirement to be ‘‘as soon 

as practicable.’’ 55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 

1990). States are required to develop RACM and 

BACM that address both the annual and 24-hour 

PM–10 standards. Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 308–

311 (9th Cir. 1996). 

3The number following the slash (‘‘/’’) in this 

citation refers to the column on the Federal 

Register page. 

4The Amendments to the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

supersede some portions of the 2003 PM–10 Plan 

and also add to it. References hereafter to the ‘‘SJV 

2003 PM–10 Plan’’ or ‘‘the Plan’’ mean the 2003 

Plan submitted on August 19, 2003, as amended by 

the December 30, 2003 submittal. 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

8011 .................................................... General Requirements .................................................................................... 08/19/04 09/23/04 

8021 .................................................... Construction, Demolition, Excavation, Extraction, and Other Earthmoving

Activities.

08/19/04 09/23/04 

8031 .................................................... Bulk Materials ................................................................................................. 08/19/04 09/23/04 

8041 .................................................... Carryout and Trackout .................................................................................... 08/19/04 09/23/04 

8051 .................................................... Open Areas ..................................................................................................... 08/19/04 09/23/04 

8061 .................................................... Paved and Unpaved Roads ........................................................................... 08/19/04 09/23/04 

8071 .................................................... Unpaved Vehicle/Equipment Traffic Areas ..................................................... 09/16/04 09/23/04 

8081 .................................................... Agricultural Sources ........................................................................................ 09/16/04 09/23/04 

On March 23, 2005, these rule 

submittals were found complete by 

operation of law in accordance with 

section 110(k)(1) of the Act and 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix V. 

B. Are There Other Versions of These 

Rules? 

We approved versions of Rules 8011, 

8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061, 8071 and 

8081 into the SIP on February 26, 2003. 

68 FR 8830. The SIP-approved versions 

of these rules were adopted by 

SJVUAPCD on November 15, 2001 and 

CARB submitted them to us on 

December 6, 2001. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

The submitted revisions are necessary 

to fulfill Regulation VIII commitments 

in the SIP-approved 2003 PM–10 Plan 

for the San Joaquin Valley. The TSD has 

more information about these rule 

revisions. 

II. Background to Today’s Proposal 

On November 15, 1990, amendments 

to the CAA were enacted. Pub. Law 

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 

U.S.C. 7401–7671q. On the date of 

enactment of the 1990 CAA 

Amendments, PM–10 areas meeting the 

qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of 

the Act, including the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin,1 were designated 

nonattainment by operation of law and 

classified as moderate pursuant to 

section 188(a). Under section 189(a) of 

the CAA, moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas must implement by 

December 10, 1993 Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) for 

PM–10. 

On February 8, 1993, EPA reclassified 

five moderate nonattainment areas, 

including the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Basin, to serious nonattainment 

pursuant to section 188(b)(58 FR 3334). 

Section 189(b) requires serious 

nonattainment areas to implement Best 

Available Control Measures (BACM) by 

February 8, 1997, four years after 

reclassification.2

In response to section 110(a) and Part 

D of the Act, local California air 

pollution control districts adopted and 

the State of California submitted many 

PM–10 rules to EPA for incorporation 

into the California SIP on July 23, 1996, 

including a series of fugitive dust rules 

(‘‘Regulation VIII’’) adopted by 

SJVUAPCD. 

On March 8, 2000, EPA took final 

action on the 1996 version of Regulation 

VIII, issuing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval with an effective 

date of April 7, 2000. 65 FR 12118. EPA 

noted that it was ‘‘finalizing the limited 

approval of these rules in order to 

strengthen the SIP and finalizing the 

limited disapproval because of the 

remaining deficiencies.’’ Id. at 12119/1.3

Among the deficiencies identified by 

EPA were ‘‘lack of appropriate 

standards and/or test methods that 

would ensure a level of control 

consistent with RACM or BACM 

* * *.’’ Id. 

As a result of the disapproval, EPA 

explained that the emissions offset 

sanction would apply 18 months after 

April 7, 2000, and the highway funding 

sanction six months later, unless the Air 

District cured the deficiencies. Id. at 

12118/2–3. In addition, EPA explained 

that it would be required to promulgate 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if 

those deficiencies were not corrected 

within 24 months. 

SJVUAPCD adopted revised 

Regulation VIII rules on November 15, 

2001, which CARB submitted to EPA on 

December 6, 2001. SJVUAPCD intended 

that the new rules would both remedy 

the RACM deficiencies identified by 

EPA in its March 8, 2000 action, and 

fulfill BACM requirements under the 

CAA. EPA found that new provisions in 

Regulation VIII ‘‘significantly 

strengthened’’ the rules by tightening 

standards, covering more activities, and 

adding more requirements to control 

dust-producing activities. 67 FR 15346–

47 (4/1/02). 

On February 26, 2003, EPA issued a 

final rulemaking (Final Rule) (68 FR 

8830) that conditionally approved the 

November 15, 2001 version of 

Regulation VIII with respect to RACM 

and issued a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of Regulation VIII 

with respect to BACM. Thus, the 

November 15, 2001 version of 

Regulation VIII was added to the SIP, 

yet a sanctions clock for the BACM 

deficiency began with the effective date 

of the Final Rule, March 28, 2003. Id. at 

8833/3. We found that the submittal did 

not adequately fulfill the CAA section 

189(b) requirement for a BACM 

demonstration, specifically identifying 

thresholds of source coverage within the 

rules (e.g., minimum size of sources 

subject to rule requirements) for which 

an adequate BACM demonstration was 

outstanding. 

On August 19, 2003, CARB submitted 

the ‘‘2003 PM10 Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Plan to Attain Federal Standards 

for Particulate Matter 10 Microns and 

Smaller’’. CARB submitted 

Amendments to this plan on December 

30, 2003.4 Among other demonstrations, 

the Plan included a demonstration that 

RACM and BACM will be expeditiously 

implemented for all significant sources 

of PM–10. The Plan’s RACM and BACM 

demonstration included fugitive dust 

sources subject to Regulation VIII and 

contained several specific commitments 

to upgrade Regulation VIII to a BACM 

level of control by September 2004. On 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51305 

5As we explained in our proposed approval of 

the Plan, CAA section 189(a)(1)(C) requires 

implementation of RACM for moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas and that a serious area PM–10 

plan must also provide for the implementation of 

RACM to the extent that the RACM requirement has 

not been satisfied in the area’s moderate area plan 

as was the case here. We further explained that we 

do not normally conduct a separate evaluation to 

determine if a serious area plan’s measures meet the 

RACM as well as BACM requirements as 

interpreted by us in the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 

16, 1992) (General Preamble). This is because in our 

serious area guidance—Addendum to the General 

Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998, 

42010 (August 16, 1994) (Addendum)—we interpret 

the BACM requirement as generally subsuming the 

RACM requirement (i.e., if we determine that the 

measures are indeed the ‘‘best available,’’ we have 

necessarily concluded that they are ‘‘reasonably 

available’’). 69 FR at 5417/footnote 11. Accordingly, 

in our evaluation and proposed approval of 

Regulation VIII below, references to BACM are 

intended to include RACM. 

6EPA’s determination that the Plan satisfies CAA 

section 189(b) requirements for BACM was, in part, 

based upon SJVUAPCD’s commitments to adopt 

specific requirements for fugitive dust sources 

subject to Regulation VIII. 

May 26, 2004, EPA approved the SJV 

2003 PM–10 Plan, including the RACM 

and BACM demonstration for 

Regulation VIII sources, as meeting the 

requirements of CAA sections 

189(a)(1)(C) and 189(b)(1)(B).5 69 FR 

30006. Approval of this demonstration 

terminated all Regulation VIII sanction, 

FIP, and rule disapproval implications 

of our February 26, 2003 action. Id. at 

30035/1. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). These rules have been evaluated 

for enforceability pursuant to the 

‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

We have also reviewed the submitted 

rules to determine whether the BACM 

commitments in the SJV 2003 PM–10 

Plan have been adopted into Regulation 

VIII for purposes of fulfilling the SIPapproved Plan commitments.6 Since we 

have already approved the Plan’s BACM 

demonstration for Regulation VIII 

sources, we are only evaluating these 

rules under CAA section 189(b) to the 

extent that requirements adopted in 

August and September, 2004, differ 

from the BACM commitments contained 

in the Plan. EPA’s RACM guidance can 

be found in the General Preamble. EPA’s 

BACM guidance can be found in the 

Addendum. 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. In comparing the relevant 

rule requirements to the SJV 2003 PM–

10 Plan’s Regulation VIII BACM 

commitments, we found only minor 

differences for which reasoned 

justification exists. Therefore, we 

believe that these rules fulfill the Plan’s 

Regulation VIII BACM commitments 

and that minor modifications 

SJVUAPCD adopted into Regulation VIII 

requirements also satisfy BACM. The 

TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that do not affect EPA’s 

current action but are recommended for 

the next time the local agency modifies 

the rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements as 

discussed above, we are proposing to 

fully approve them under CAA section 

110(k)(3) as meeting CAA sections 

189(a)(1)(C) and (b)(1)(B). We will 

accept comments from the public on 

this proposal for the next 30 days. With 

respect to CAA sections 189(a) and 

189(b), we are only evaluating 

comments to the extent that newly 

adopted requirements in Regulation VIII 

differ from the RACM/BACM 

commitments contained in the PM–10 

Plan that EPA has already approved. 

Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

also not subject to Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This proposed action merely 

proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule 

proposes to approve pre-existing 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to approve a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

51306 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 167 / Tuesday, August 30, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and Recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: August 5, 2005. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 05–17196 Filed 8–29–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0083; FRL–7962–2] 

RIN 2060–AM76 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated 

Iron and Steel Manufacturing 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes 

amendments to the national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for integrated iron and steel 

manufacturing. The proposed 

amendments would add a new 

compliance option, revise emission 

limitations, reduce the frequency of 

repeat performance tests for certain 

emissions units, add corrective action 

requirements, and clarify certain 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before October 31, 2005. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts 

EPA requesting to speak at a public 

hearing by September 19, 2005, a public 

hearing will be held approximately 30 

days following publication of this action 

in the Federal Register. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0083, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, 

Attention Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0083 and mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741 and (919) 541–

5450. 

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send 

comments to: EPA Docket Center 

(6102T), Attention Docket Number 

OAR–2002–0083, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: In person or by 

courier, deliver comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket 

ID Number OAR–2002–0083, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 

B–102, Washington, DC 20004. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. We 

request that a separate copy of each 

public comment also be sent to the 

contact person for the proposed action 

listed below see(FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2002–0083. 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.epa.gov/ 

edocket, 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 EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, 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 e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or 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 

EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal 

Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102). 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the EDOCKET index at 

http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 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 EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket 

ID Number OAR–2002–0083, EPA West 

Building, Room B102, 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 EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. A reasonable fee may 

be charged for copying docket materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, 

Emission Standards Division, Metals 

Group (C439–02), Research Triangle 

Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541–

5289, fax number (919) 541–5450, email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulated Entities. The regulated 

categories and entities affected by the 

NESHAP include: 

Category NAIC 

code1 Examples of regulated entities 

Industry ........................................................ 331111 Integrated iron and steel mills, steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic 

oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shops. 

Federal government .................................... .................. Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ....................... .................. Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System.