Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16937 

TABLE TO § 165.506—Continued 

[All coordinates listed in the Table to § 165.506 reference Datum NAD 1983] 

Number Date Location Regulated area 

13 .......... August—1st Tuesday ..... New River, Jacksonville, 

NC, Safety Zone.

All waters of the New River within a 300 yard radius of the fireworks launch 

site in approximate position latitude 34°44′45′′ N, longitude 077°26′18′′ W, 

approximately one half mile south of the Hwy 17 Bridge, Jacksonville, 

North Carolina. 

Dated: March 1, 2012. 

William D. Lee, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Fifth Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6781 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0092; FRL–9651–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

West Virginia’s Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. 

EPA is taking this action because West 

Virginia’s SIP revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the West Virginia SIP. We 

are finalizing our limited disapproval of 

the same SIP revision arising from the 

remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). This action is being taken in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules for 

states to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. EPA is 

also approving this revision as meeting 

the infrastructure requirements relating 

to visibility protection for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on April 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0092. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection 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 West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melissa Linden, (215) 814–2096, or by 

email at linden.melissa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

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

EPA. On July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41158), 

EPA published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of West Virginia. The 

NPR proposed limited approval and 

limited disapproval of West Virginia’s 

Regional Haze SIP. The formal SIP 

revision was submitted by West Virginia 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(WVDEP) on June 18, 2008. This 

revision also meets the requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110(a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The SIP revision includes a long term 

strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first planning period, through 

2018. West Virginia’s Regional Haze 

Plan contains the emission reductions 

needed to achieve West Virginia’s share 

of emission reductions and sets the 

reasonable progress goals for other states 

to achieve reasonable progress at the 

two Class I Areas within West Virginia, 

Dolly Sods Wilderness Area and Otter 

Creek Wilderness Area. The specific 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule and the rationale for 

EPA’s proposed action are explained in 

the NPR and will not be restated here. 

EPA received two adverse comments on 

the July 13, 2011 NPR. Both comments 

raise similar concerns with the NPR and 

have been combined. A summary of the 

comments submitted and EPA’s 

responses are provided in section III of 

this document. 

III. Summary of Public Comments and 

EPA Responses 

Comment: The commenter argues that 

EPA’s proposed limited approval/ 

limited disapproval action based on 

West Virginia’s reliance on CAIR is 

unwarranted and should be withdrawn. 

Instead, the commenter states that EPA 

should grant full and unconditional 

approval of the West Virginia regional 

haze SIP. The commenter disagrees that 

CAIR renders the State’s SIP unable to 

satisfy all of the CAA’s regional haze 

SIP requirements. The commenter notes 

that West Virginia’s SIP was submitted 

prior to the remand of CAIR and relied 

on the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4), which remain in effect at 

this time. The commenter argues that as 

a result, the West Virginia SIP is entirely 

consistent with the applicable law. 

Moreover, the commenter highlights 

that the visibility-improvement benefits 

from CAIR’s emission reductions are 

likely to be replicated, or indeed 

exceeded, by the visibility benefits 

projected to result from the Cross State 

Air Pollution Rule. The commenter 

argues that EPA does not have a basis 

to propose or promulgate disapproval or 

limited disapproval of a Regional Haze 

SIP due to its reliance on CAIR and on 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(4), because EPA has 

not determined, based on a thorough 

and defensible analysis, that the 

emission reductions and associated 

visibility-improvement benefits that are 

likely to result from the final CSAPR 

will not be at least comparable to those 

achieved under CAIR. Because the SIP 

is fully compliant with the relevant 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
16938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations as they exist today, and 

EPA, at this time, has not made a 

determination that CSAPR will not 

satisfy the CAA’s Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) alternative 

requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from 

electric generating units (EGUs) and 

cannot be used, in at least the same 

measure as CAIR was used, to help meet 

reasonable progress requirements for 

regional haze, the commenter believes 

that the only proper course of action for 

EPA is to promptly promulgate a full 

approval of the West Virginia SIP. 

Response: The requirements for a 

BART alternative program, specific to 

trading programs in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) 

state that ‘‘such an emissions trading 

program or other alternative measure 

must achieve greater reasonable 

progress than would be achieved 

through the installation and operation of 

BART.’’ EPA’s analysis, in 2005, 

showing that CAIR would provide for 

greater reasonable progress than BART, 

was based on the then reasonable 

assumption that CAIR met the 

requirements of the CAA and would 

remain in place. EPA’s Transport Rule, 

commonly referred to as the Cross State 

Air Pollution Rule, sunsets the 

requirements of CAIR. EPA’s decision to 

sunset CAIR is the result of a decision 

by the DC Circuit remanding CAIR to 

EPA and leaving CAIR in place only 

‘‘temporarily,’’ as noted in our notice of 

proposed rulemaking and by the 

commenters. As such, notwithstanding 

the regulatory text in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(4), we cannot fully approve 

the West Virginia Regional Haze SIP 

which relies heavily on CAIR as part of 

its long-term strategy and to meet the 

BART requirements. 

EPA does agree that the Transport 

Rule is likely to result in visibility 

improvements at least comparable to 

CAIR; however, nothing in West 

Virginia’s Regional Haze SIP suggests 

that the State relied on the Transport 

Rule to meet its regional haze 

obligations. The EPA has completed an 

analysis and has proposed the Transport 

Rule as an alternative to BART for EGUs 

located in the Transport Rule states 

(which include West Virginia). 76 FR 

82219. Given the significance of the 

emissions reductions from CAIR to West 

Virginia’s demonstration that it has met 

the requirements of the Regional Haze 

Rule, EPA is issuing a limited 

disapproval of the West Virginia SIP. 

Although CAIR is currently being 

administered by EPA pursuant to an 

order by DC Circuit in EME Homer 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, it will not 

remain in effect indefinitely. For this 

reason, EPA cannot fully approve 

Regional Haze SIP revisions that rely on 

CAIR for emission reduction measures. 

IV. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing its limited approval 

and limited disapproval of the revision 

to the West Virginia SIP submitted on 

June 18, 2008, that addresses regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

EPA is issuing a limited approval of the 

West Virginia SIP since overall the SIP 

will be stronger and more protective of 

the environment with the 

implementation of those measures by 

the State and having Federal approval 

and enforceability than it would 

without those measures being included 

in the State’s SIP. 

EPA is finalizing the limited 

disapproval of those portions of West 

Virginia’s SIP that rely on CAIR. This 

final limited disapproval does not affect 

the Federal enforceability of the 

measures in the West Virginia SIP 

revision nor prevent state 

implementation of these measures. The 

final limited disapproval provides EPA 

the authority to issue a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) at any time, 

and obligates EPA to take such action no 

more than two years after the effective 

date of the final limited disapproval 

action. EPA has proposed a partial 

regional haze FIP that would provide 

that the BART requirements for SO2 and 

NOX emissions from EGUs in West 

Virginia are satisfied by the alreadypromulgated Transport Rule FIP 

applicable to EGU sources in West 

Virginia, as would be allowed by a 

proposed revision to the Regional Haze 

Rule that was included in the same 

notice published on December 30, 2011. 

76 FR 82219. EPA is also approving this 

revision as meeting the applicable 

visibility related requirements of the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not 

limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must 

approve all ‘‘collections of information’’ 

by EPA. The Act defines ‘‘collection of 

information’’ as a requirement for 

answers to * * * identical reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements imposed on 

ten or more persons * * *. 44 U.S.C. 

3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction 

Act does not apply to this action. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA generally requires an agency 

to conduct a regulatory flexibility 

analysis of any rule subject to notice 

and comment rulemaking requirements 

unless the agency certifies that the rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small 

businesses, small not-for-profit 

enterprises, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the CAA do not create any new 

requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Moreover, due 

to the nature of the Federal-state 

relationship under the CAA, preparation 

of a flexibility analysis would constitute 

Federal inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of state action. The CAA 

forbids EPA to base its actions 

concerning SIPs on such grounds. 

Union Electric Co., v. EPA, 427 U.S. 

246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 

7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that today’s 

proposal does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

state, local, or tribal governments in the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 16939 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve preexisting requirements under State or 

local law, and imposes no new 

requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have Federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

Federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has Federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a state rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Thus, the requirements of section 6 of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that: (1) Is 

determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. This action 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action based on 

health or safety risks subject to 

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997). 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12 of the NTTAA of 1995 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

existing technical standards when 

developing a new regulation. To comply 

with NTTAA, EPA must consider and 

use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ 

(VCS) if available and applicable when 

developing programs and policies 

unless doing so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval does not require the public 

to perform activities conducive to the 

use of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

Virginia Regional Haze proposed action. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve or disapprove state 

choices, based on the criteria of the 

Clean Air Act. Accordingly, it does not 

provide 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. 

K. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by May 22, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES
16940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 57 / Friday, March 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

West Virginia Regional Haze SIP may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 15, 2012. 

James W. Newsom, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2520, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding an entry for 

Regional Haze Plan at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

52.2520 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ................ Statewide ............................... 6/18/08 3/23/12 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

§52.2533(d); Limited Approval. 

■ 3. Section 52.2533 is amended by 

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

52.2533 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(d) Limited approval of the Regional 

Haze Plan submitted by West Virginia 

on June 18, 2008; limited disapproval 

for those sections relying upon emission 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR). 

[FR Doc. 2012–7027 Filed 3–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0671; FRL–9633–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Volatile Organic Compound Emission 

Control Measures for Chicago and 

Metro-East St. Louis Ozone 

Nonattainment Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving, under the 

Clean Air Act (the Act), revisions to the 

Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted on July 29, 2010, September 

16, 2011 and September 29, 2011. The 

purpose of these rules is to satisfy the 

Act’s requirement that States revise 

their SIPs to include reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

sources of volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions in moderate ozone 

nonattainment areas. Illinois’ VOC rules 

provide RACT requirements for the 

Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment areas. These rules 

are approvable because they are 

consistent with the Control Technique 

Guideline (CTG) documents issued by 

EPA in 2006, 2007 and 2008 and satisfy 

the RACT requirements of the Act. EPA 

proposed this rule for approval on 

November 30, 2011 and received 

comments from Illinois EPA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 23, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0671. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Steven 

Rosenthal, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6052 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Rosenthal, Environmental 

Engineer, Air Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6052. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. What public comments were received on 

the proposed approval? 

II. What action is EPA taking today and what 

is the basis of this action? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What public comments were received 

on the proposed approval? 

EPA proposed this rule for approval 

on November 30, 2011 and received 

comments from Illinois EPA. Illinois 

EPA submitted comments in support of 

this rule on December 16, 2011. In its 

comments Illinois identified the 

following errors (with the appropriate 

corrections) that were made in the 

November 30, 2011 proposed approval. 

These corrections are: 

(1) Page 74015, Section IV, Subsection 

(1): The title should reference Part 211 

instead of Section 211. 

(2) Page 74015, Section IV, Subsection 

(3): The end of the first paragraph 

implies that Illinois’ surface coating 

regulations at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.208 

and 219.208 allow an equivalent 

applicability threshold of 2.7 tons of 

VOM per 12 month rolling period. 

Illinois’ rules contain no such 

equivalent threshold. 

(3) Pages 74015–74016, Section IV, 

Subsections (3) and (5): In the titles, the 

second set of section references should 

be to Part 219, not 218. 

(4) Page 74016, Section IV, Subsection 

(6): In the title, Illinois’ regulations 

specific to fiberglass boat manufacturing 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES