Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27121 

ACE IA E5 Hampton, IA [Amended] 

Hampton Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 42°43′25′′ N., long. 93°13′35′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile 

radius of Hampton Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

ACE IA E5 Harlan, IA [Amended] 

Harlan Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 41°35′04′′ N., long. 95°20′23′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile 

radius of Harlan Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

ACE IA E5 Iowa Falls, IA [Amended] 

Iowa Falls Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 42°28′17′′ N., long. 93°16′15′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile 

radius of Iowa Falls Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

ACE IA E5 Knoxville, IA [Amended] 

Knoxville Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 41°17′57′′ N., long. 93°06′50′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile 

radius of Knoxville Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

ACE IA E5 Oelwein, IA [Amended] 

Oelwein Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 42°40′51′′ N., long. 91°58′28′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 7.3-mile 

radius of Oelwein Municipal Airport. 

* * * * * 

ACE IA E5 Red Oak, IA [Amended] 

Red Oak Municipal Airport, IA 

(Lat. 41°00′39′′ N., long. 95°15′32′′ W.) 

That airspace extending upward from 700 

feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile 

radius of Red Oak Municipal Airport; and 

within 2 miles each side of the 354° bearing 

from the airport extending from the 6.4-mile 

radius to 11 miles north of the airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 24, 

2015. 

Robert W. Beck, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO 

Central Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11226 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0346; FRL–9927–55– 

Region 8] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Colorado; Interstate Transport of 

Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5

NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

May 11, 2012 State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of 

Colorado that is intended to 

demonstrate that its SIP meets certain 

interstate transport requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for the 2006 

fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). This submission addresses 

the requirement that Colorado’s SIP 

contain adequate provisions prohibiting 

air emissions that will have certain 

adverse air quality effects in other 

states. EPA is proposing to determine 

that Colorado’s existing SIP contains 

adequate provisions to ensure that air 

emissions in Colorado do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state, or interfere 

with another state’s measures to prevent 

significant deterioration (PSD) of air 

quality or to protect visibility. EPA is 

also proposing to approve the portion of 

Colorado’s submission that addresses 

the CAA requirement that SIPs contain 

adequate provisions related to interstate 

and international pollution abatement. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0346, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: clark.adam@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0346. 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. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I, General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publiclyavailable docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27122 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–7104, clark.adam@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The initials CAIR mean or refer to the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule. 

(iii) The initials CSAPR mean or refer to 

the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule or 

‘‘Transport Rule.’’ 

(iv) The initials CDPHE mean or refer to 

the Colorado Department of Public Health 

and Environment. 

(v) The words State and Colorado mean the 

State of Colorado, unless the context 

indicates otherwise. 

(vi) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to 

the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

(viii) The initials NNSR mean or refer to 

nonattainment New Source Review. 

(ix) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to fine 

particulate matter. 

(x) The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration. 

(xi) The initials RAVI mean or refer to 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. 

(xii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State 

Implementation Plan. 

(xiii) The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

(xiv) The initials WRAP mean or refer to 

Western Regional Air Partnership. 

(xv) The initials mg/m3 mean or refer to 

micrograms per cubic meter. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

C. EPA Guidance 

III. Colorado’s Submittal 

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

B. Evaluation of Significant Contribution to 

Nonattainment 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

D. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures to Prevent Significant 

Deterioration 

E. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures to Protect Visibility 

F. Evaluation of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements 

V. Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. General Information 

What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to 

EPA through www.regulations.gov or 

email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 

information that you claim to be CBI. 

For CBI information in a disk or CD 

ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI 

and then identify electronically within 

the disk or CD ROM the specific 

information that is claimed as CBI. In 

addition to one complete version of the 

comment that includes information 

claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment 

that does not contain the information 

claimed as CBI must be submitted for 

inclusion in the public docket. 

Information so marked will not be 

disclosed except in accordance with 

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

• Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

• Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

• Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

• Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

• If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

• Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

• Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

• Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

A. 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and Interstate 

Transport 

On September 21, 2006, EPA 

promulgated a final rule revising the 

1997 24-hour primary and secondary 

NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 micrograms 

per cubic meter (mg/m3) to 35 mg/m3

(October 17, 2006, 71 FR 61144). 

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires 

each state to submit to EPA, within 

three years (or such shorter period as 

the Administrator may prescribe) after 

the promulgation of a primary or 

secondary NAAQS or any revision 

thereof, a SIP that provides for the 

‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. EPA 

refers to these specific submittals as 

‘‘infrastructure’’ SIPs because they are 

intended to address basic structural SIP 

requirements for new or revised 

NAAQS. For the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, these infrastructure SIPs were 

due on September 21, 2009. CAA 

section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such plan 

submission’’ must meet. 

The interstate transport provisions in 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (also called 

‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions) require 

each state to submit a SIP that prohibits 

emissions that will have certain adverse 

air quality effects in other states. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies four 

distinct elements related to the impacts 

of air pollutants transported across state 

lines. The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit any 

source or other type of emissions 

activity within the state from emitting 

air pollutants that will (element 1) 

contribute significantly to 

nonattainment in any other state with 

respect to any such national primary or 

secondary NAAQS, and (element 2) 

interfere with maintenance by any other 

state with respect to the same NAAQS. 

The two elements under 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) require SIPs to contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will interfere with 

measures required to be included in the 

applicable implementation plan for any 

other state under part C (element 3) to 

prevent significant deterioration of air 

quality or (element 4) to protect 

visibility. In this action, EPA is 

addressing all four elements of CAA 

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

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires 

that each SIP shall contain adequate 

provisions insuring compliance with 

applicable requirements of sections 126 

and 115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement). EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27123 

1See NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 

1998); Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 

25172 (May 12, 2005); and Transport Rule or CrossState Air Pollution Rule, 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 

2011). 

2CAIR addressed the 1997 annual and 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 

It did not address the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

3See Memorandum from William T. Harnett 

entitled ‘‘Guidance on SIP Elements Required 

Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24- 

Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS),’’ September 25, 2009, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/

memoranda/20090925_harnett_pm25_sip_

110a12.pdf. 

4The 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

stated that EPA was working on a new rule to 

replace CAIR that would address issues raised by 

the court in the North Carolina case and that would 

provide guidance to states in addressing the 

requirements related to interstate transport in CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS. It also noted that states could not rely on 

the CAIR rule for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) 

submissions for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS 

because the CAIR rule did not address this NAAQS. 

See 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance at 

3. 

5See ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)’’ dated September 

13, 2013, in the docket for this action. 

6Colorado’s SIP, dated May 11, 2012, is included 

in the docket for this action. 

is also addressing this requirement with 

regard to Colorado’s SIP in this action. 

B. Rules Addressing Interstate Transport 

for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

EPA has previously addressed the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in past regulatory 

actions.1 Most recently, EPA published 

the final Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR or ‘‘Transport Rule’’) to address 

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

eastern portion of the United States with 

respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 

1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS (August 8, 2011, 

76 FR 48208). CSAPR replaces the 

earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

which was judicially remanded.2 See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 21, 2012, 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC 

Circuit issued a decision vacating 

CSAPR, see EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. E.P.A., 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), and ordering EPA to 

continue implementing CAIR in the 

interim. However, on April 29, 2014, the 

U.S. Supreme Court reversed and 

remanded the DC Circuit’s ruling and 

upheld EPA’s approach in CSAPR. EPA 

v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 

S. Ct. 1584, 1610 (2014). After the U.S. 

Supreme Court decision, EPA filed a 

motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and 

asked the DC Circuit to toll CSAPR’s 

compliance deadlines by three years. On 

October 23, 2014 the DC Circuit granted 

EPA’s motion and lifted the stay on 

CSAPR. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 

23, 2014), Order at 3. CSAPR began 

implementation on January 1, 2015 

pursuant to the DC Circuit’s directive 

lifting the stay. The State of Colorado 

was not covered by CSAPR, and EPA 

made no determinations in the rule 

regarding whether emissions from 

sources in Colorado significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in another state. 

C. EPA Guidance 

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued a 

guidance memorandum that provides 

recommendations to states for making 

submissions to meet the requirements of 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 

PM2.5 standards (‘‘2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance’’ or 

‘‘Guidance’’).3 With respect to element 1 

of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to 

prohibit emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment of the 

NAAQS in any other state, the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance 

advised states to include in their section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submissions an 

adequate technical analysis to support 

their conclusions regarding interstate 

pollution transport, e.g., information 

concerning emissions in the state, 

meteorological conditions in the state 

and in potentially impacted states, 

monitored ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the state and in 

potentially impacted states, distances to 

the nearest areas not attaining the 

NAAQS in other states, and air quality 

modeling.4

With respect to element 2 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) to prohibit 

emissions that would interfere with 

maintenance of the NAAQS by any 

other state, the Guidance stated that SIP 

submissions must address this 

independent and distinct requirement of 

the statute and provide technical 

information appropriate to support the 

State’s conclusions, and suggested 

consideration of the same technical 

information that would be appropriate 

for element 1 of this CAA requirement. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to use 

the conceptual approach to evaluating 

interstate pollution transport under 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that EPA 

explained in the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS 

Infrastructure Guidance and CSAPR. As 

such, we find that the CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP submission from 

Colorado may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information, including the factors 

recommended in the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS Infrastructure Guidance. These 

submissions can rely on modeling when 

acceptable modeling technical analyses 

are available, but EPA does not believe 

that modeling is necessarily required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a given situation. 

With respect to the requirements in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) which address 

elements 3 (PSD) and 4 (visibility), EPA 

most recently issued an infrastructure 

guidance memo on September 13, 2013 

that included guidance on these two 

elements.5 For the purposes of this 

action, this memo will hereon be 

referred to as the ‘‘2013 I–SIP 

Guidance.’’ 

III. Colorado’s Submittal 

On May 11, 2012, the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) submitted an 

interstate transport SIP which 

concluded that Colorado meets all of the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS.6 In this submission, 

Colorado provided a thorough technical 

analysis for elements 1 and 2 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) which concluded 

that the State did not contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. 

The State based this conclusion on 

consideration of factors including 

distance, monitored attainment of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Colorado 

and downwind states, and modeling 

conducted by EPA. 

To meet the element 3 (PSD) 

requirement of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced its 

existing PSD and nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) permitting 

programs. To meet the element 4 

(visibility) requirement of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i), the State referenced and 

discussed its Reasonably Attributable 

Visibility Impairment (RAVI) program, 

Regional Haze SIP, and some emission 

reduction programs currently in the 

Colorado SIP that reduce visibility 

impairing pollutants. 

The State’s May 11, 2012 interstate 

transport submission and June 4, 2010 

infrastructure SIP certification for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS both 

overlooked the requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), which requires 

that each SIP shall contain adequate 

provisions insuring compliance with 

applicable requirements of sections 126 

and 115 (relating to interstate and 

international pollution abatement). The 

State submitted a clarification letter on 

March 12, 2015, which explained that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27124 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

7Colorado’s certification letter is available in the 

docket for this action. 

8Colorado’s 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 infrastructure certifications 

are available in the docket for this action. 

9As noted, the State of Colorado was not 

included in the CSAPR modeling domain. 

10EPA also considered potential PM2.5 transport 

from Colorado to the nearest nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors located in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states covered by CSAPR 

and believes it is reasonable to conclude that, given 

the significant distance from Colorado to the nearest 

such receptor (in East St. Louis, IL) and the 

relatively insignificant amount of emissions from 

Colorado that could potentially be transported such 

a distance when compared to downwind states 

whose contribution was modeled for CSAPR, 

emissions from Colorado sources do not 

significantly contribute to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS at this location. These same factors 

also support a finding that emissions from Colorado 

sources neither contribute significantly to 

nonattainment nor interfere with maintenance of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at any location 

further east. See TSD at Section I.B.3. 

11Because CAIR did not cover states in the 

Western United States, these data are not 

significantly impacted by the remanded CAIR and 

thus could be considered in this analysis. In 

contrast, recent air quality data in the eastern, 

midwestern and southern states are significantly 

impacted by reductions associated with CAIR and 

because CSAPR was developed to replace CAIR, 

the State had inadvertently left 

discussion of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 infrastructure 

certification.7 The State noted that in its 

four subsequent infrastructure 

submittals (for the 2008 Pb, 2008 Ozone, 

2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS), it had 

included the necessary demonstration 

that Colorado’s SIP meets the 

requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The 

State requested that the same 

demonstration used in all subsequent 

infrastructure submittals be applied to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification 

submitted June 4, 2010.8

IV. EPA’s Evaluation 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement is 

satisfied, EPA first determines whether 

a state’s emissions contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance in other 

states. If a state is determined not to 

have such contribution or interference, 

then section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) does not 

require any changes to that state’s SIP. 

Consistent with the first step of EPA’s 

approach in the 1998 NOX SIP call, the 

2005 CAIR, and the 2011 CSAPR, EPA 

evaluated impacts of emissions from 

Colorado with respect to specific 

monitors identified as having 

nonattainment and/or maintenance 

problems, which we refer to as 

‘‘receptors.’’ To evaluate these impacts, 

and in the absence of relevant modeling 

of Colorado emissions, EPA examined 

factors suggested by the 2006 Guidance 

such as monitoring data, topography, 

and meteorology. EPA notes that no 

single piece of information is by itself 

dispositive of the issue. Instead, the 

total weight of all the evidence taken 

together is used to evaluate significant 

contributions to nonattainment or 

interference with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another 

state. 

Our proposed approval takes into 

account the information provided in 

Colorado’s 2012 Interstate Transport 

SIP. In addition, we are supplementing 

the evaluation of the State’s submittal 

with a review of the monitors in other 

states that are appropriate 

‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ or 

‘‘maintenance receptors,’’ consistent 

with EPA’s approach in the CSAPR, and 

additional relevant technical 

information to determine whether 

sources in Colorado contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. 

Our Technical Support Document 

(TSD) contains a detailed evaluation 

and is available in the public docket for 

this rulemaking, which may be accessed 

online at www.regulations.gov, docket 

number EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0346. 

Below, we provide a summary of our 

analysis. 

A. Identification of Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Receptors 

EPA evaluated data from existing 

monitors over three overlapping 3-year 

periods (i.e., 2009–2011, 2010–2012, 

and 2011–2013) to determine which 

areas are expected to be violating the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and which 

areas might have difficulty maintaining 

attainment of the standard. If a 

monitoring site measured a violation of 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS during 

the most recent 3-year period (2011– 

2013), then that monitor location was 

evaluated for purposes of the significant 

contribution to nonattainment (element 

1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If, on the 

other hand, a monitoring site shows 

attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS during the most recent 3-year 

period (2011–2013) but a violation in at 

least one of the previous two 3-year 

periods (2010–2012 or 2009–2011), then 

that monitor location was evaluated for 

purposes of the interfere with 

maintenance (element 2) of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

This approach is similar to that used 

in the modeling done during the 

development of CSAPR, but differs in 

that it relies on monitoring data (rather 

than modeling) for the western states 

not included in the CSAPR modeling 

domain.9 By this method, EPA has 

identified those areas with monitors to 

be considered ‘‘nonattainment 

receptors’’ or ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ 

for evaluating whether the emissions 

from sources in another state could 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment in, or interfere with 

maintenance in, that particular area. 

EPA continues to believe that the 

more widespread and serious transport 

problems in the eastern United States 

are analytically distinct. For the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes 

that nonattainment and maintenance 

problems in the western United States 

are relatively local in nature with only 

limited impacts from interstate 

transport. In CSAPR, EPA did not 

calculate the portion of any downwind 

state’s predicted PM2.5 concentrations 

that would result from emissions from 

individual western states, such as 

Colorado. Accordingly, EPA believes 

that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIP 

submissions for states outside the 

geographic area analyzed to develop 

CSAPR may be evaluated using a 

‘‘weight of the evidence’’ approach that 

takes into account available relevant 

information, such as that recommended 

by EPA in the Guidance. Such 

information may include, but is not 

limited to, the amount of emissions in 

the state relevant to the NAAQS in 

question, the meteorological conditions 

in the area, the distance from the state 

to the nearest monitors in other states 

that are appropriate receptors, or such 

other information as may be probative to 

consider as to whether sources in the 

state may contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in other states. These 

submissions can rely on modeling when 

acceptable modeling technical analyses 

are available, but EPA does not believe 

that modeling is necessarily required if 

other available information is sufficient 

to evaluate the presence or degree of 

interstate transport in a given situation. 

B. Evaluation of Significant 

Contribution to Nonattainment 

EPA reviewed technical information 

to evaluate the potential for Colorado 

emissions to contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS at specified monitoring sites in 

the Western U.S.10 EPA first identified 

as ‘‘nonattainment receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

years 2011–2013.11 See Section III of our 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27125 

EPA could not consider reductions associated with 

the CAIR in the base case transport analysis for 

those states. See 76 FR at 48223–24. 

12See 2013 I–SIP Guidance. 13The proposed rulemaking was published May 

23, 2013 (78 FR 30830). As described in that 

proposed rulemaking, EPA did not approve certain 

portions of the State’s incorporation of the 2010 

PM2.5 Increment Rule because these portions were 

ultimately removed from EPA’s PSD regulations. 

14See Colorado Regulation No. 3, Part D, Section 

V, which was most recently approved by EPA in a 

final rulemaking dated February 13, 2014 (79 FR 

8632). 

TSD for more a more detailed 

description of EPA’s methodology for 

selection of nonattainment receptors. 

Because geographic distance is a 

relevant factor in the assessment of 

potential pollution transport, EPA first 

reviewed information related to 

potential transport of PM2.5 pollution 

from Colorado to the nonattainment 

receptors in Utah, the only state 

bordering Colorado which contains such 

receptors. As detailed in our TSD, the 

following factors support a finding that 

emissions from Colorado do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in Utah: (1) Technical 

information, such as data from monitors 

in the vicinity of these nonattainment 

receptors, related to the nature of local 

emissions; (2) topographical 

considerations such as intervening 

mountain ranges which tend to create 

physical impediments for pollution 

transport; and (3) meteorological 

considerations such as prevailing 

winds. While none of these factors by 

itself would necessarily show noncontribution, when taken together in a 

weight-of-evidence assessment they are 

sufficient for EPA to determine that 

emissions from Colorado do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment at the Utah receptors. 

EPA also evaluated potential PM2.5

transport to nonattainment receptors in 

the more distant western states of Idaho, 

Montana, California and Oregon. The 

following factors support a finding that 

emissions from Colorado do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS in any of these states: (1) 

The significant distance from Colorado 

to the nonattainment receptors in these 

states; (2) technical information, such as 

data from nearby monitors, related to 

the nature of local emissions; and (3) the 

presence of intervening mountain 

ranges, which tend to impede pollution 

transport. 

Based on our evaluation, we propose 

to conclude that emissions of direct 

PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from sources 

in the State of Colorado do not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standards in any other state, that 

the existing SIP for the State of Colorado 

is adequate to satisfy the ‘‘significant 

contribution’’ requirements of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards, and 

that the State of Colorado therefore does 

not need to adopt additional controls for 

purposes of implementing the 

‘‘significant contribution to 

nonattainment’’ requirement of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that 

NAAQS at this time. 

C. Evaluation of Interference With 

Maintenance 

We also reviewed technical 

information to evaluate the potential for 

Colorado emissions to interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

standards at specified monitoring sites 

in the Western U.S. EPA first identified 

as ‘‘maintenance receptors’’ all 

monitoring sites in the western states 

that had recorded PM2.5 design values 

above the level of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 NAAQS (35 mg/m3) during the 

2009–2011 and/or 2010–2012 periods 

but below this standard during the 

2011–2013 period. See section III of our 

TSD for more information regarding 

EPA’s methodology for selection of 

maintenance receptors. All of the 

maintenance receptors in the western 

states are located in California, Utah and 

Montana. EPA therefore evaluated the 

potential for transport of Colorado 

emissions to the maintenance receptors 

located in these states. As detailed in 

our TSD, the following factors support 

a finding that emissions from Colorado 

do not interfere with maintenance of the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in those 

states: (1) Technical information, such 

as data from monitors near maintenance 

receptors, related to the nature of local 

emissions, and (2) the significant 

distance between Colorado and these 

maintenance receptors. 

Based on this evaluation, EPA 

proposes to conclude that emissions of 

direct PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors from 

sources in the State of Colorado do not 

interfere with maintenance of the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 standards in any other 

state, that the existing SIP for the State 

of Colorado is adequate to satisfy the 

‘‘interfere with maintenance’’ 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), and that the State of 

Colorado therefore does not need to 

adopt additional controls for purposes 

of implementing the ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to that 

NAAQS at this time. 

D. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Prevent Significant 

Deterioration 

With regard to the PSD portion of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this 

requirement may be met by a state’s 

confirmation in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that new major sources and 

major modifications in the state are 

subject to a comprehensive EPAapproved PSD permitting program in 

the SIP that applies to all regulated NSR 

pollutants and that satisfies the 

requirements of EPA’s PSD 

implementation rule(s).12 On September 

23, 2013, EPA approved CAA section 

110(a)(2) elements (C) and (J) for 

Colorado’s infrastructure SIP for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with 

respect to PSD requirements for all 

regulated pollutants (78 FR 58186). As 

discussed in detail in the proposed 

rulemaking for that final action, the 

concurrent approval of PSD-related 

revisions which incorporated the 

requirements of the 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

Implementation Rule and certain 

requirements of the 2010 PM2.5

Increment Rule to the Colorado SIP 

action ensured that Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program meets current 

structural requirements for all regulated 

NSR pollutants.13

As stated in the 2013 I–SIP Guidance, 

in-state sources not subject to PSD for 

any one or more of the pollutants 

subject to regulation under the CAA 

because they are in a nonattainment 

area for a NAAQS related to those 

particular pollutants may also have the 

potential to interfere with PSD in an 

attainment or unclassifiable area of 

another state. One way a state may 

satisfy element 3 with respect to these 

sources is by citing an air agency’s EPAapproved nonattainment NSR 

provisions addressing any pollutants for 

which the state has designated 

nonattainment areas. Colorado has a 

SIP-approved nonattainment NSR 

program which ensures regulation of 

major sources and major modifications 

in nonattainment areas.14 As Colorado’s 

SIP meets structural PSD requirements 

for all regulated NSR pollutants, and 

contains a fully approved 

nonattainment NSR program, EPA is 

proposing to approve the infrastructure 

SIP submission as meeting the 

applicable requirements of element 3 of 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

E. Evaluation of Interference With 

Measures To Protect Visibility 

To determine whether the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement 

for visibility protection is satisfied, the 

SIP must address the potential for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

27126 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51— 

Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR 51.166(b)(i)(b). 

16See 2013 I–SIP Guidance. EPA also approved 

the visibility requirement of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) in a 

final rulemaking published April 20, 2011 (76 FR 

22036) by a demonstration provided by the State 

that did not rely on the Colorado Regional Haze SIP. 

17WildEarth Guardians filed its petition on 

February 25, 2013, and NPCA filed its petition on 

March 1, 2013. 

18This settlement agreement is included in the 

docket for this action; see also Proposed Settlement 

Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). 

19See our proposed rulemaking on the Colorado 

regional haze SIP, 77 FR 18052, March 26, 2012. 20See Colorado Regulation 3, Part D. IV.A.1. 

interference with visibility protection 

caused by the pollutant (including 

precursors) to which the new or revised 

NAAQS applies. PM2.5 is among the 

pollutants which could interfere with 

visibility protection.15 An approved 

regional haze SIP that fully meets the 

regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308 satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) 

requirement for visibility protection as 

it ensures that emissions from the state 

will not interfere with measures 

required to be included in other state 

SIPs to protect visibility. In the absence 

of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a 

state can still make a demonstration that 

satisfies the visibility requirement 

section of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).16

Colorado submitted a regional haze 

SIP to EPA on May 25, 2011. EPA 

approved Colorado’s regional haze SIP 

on December 31, 2012 (77 FR 76871). In 

early 2013, WildEarth Guardians and 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association (NPCA) filed separate 

petitions for reconsideration of certain 

aspects of EPA’s approval of the 

Colorado’s regional haze SIP.17 After 

these petitions were filed, a settlement 

agreement was entered into concerning 

the Craig Generating Station by the 

petitioners, EPA, CDPHE, and Tri-State 

Generation and Transmission 

Association, Inc., and filed with the 

court on July 10, 2014.18 In accordance 

with the settlement agreement, EPA 

requested and the court granted a 

voluntary remand to EPA of the portions 

of EPA’s December 2012 regional haze 

SIP approval that related to Craig Unit 

1. Because of this remand, and because 

the additional controls at the Craig 

facility will be implemented through a 

revision to the Colorado regional haze 

SIP that EPA has not yet acted on, EPA 

cannot rely on this approval as 

automatically satisfying element 4. 

EPA does, however, consider aspects 

of our approval of Colorado’s regional 

haze SIP to be sufficient to satisfy this 

requirement. Specifically, EPA found 

that Colorado met its 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii) requirements to include 

in its regional haze SIP all measures 

necessary to: (1) Obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

reasonable progress goals for any other 

state’s Class I area to which Colorado 

causes or contributes to visibility 

impairment; and (2) ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through a 

regional planning process. Colorado 

participated in a regional planning 

process with Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP). In the regional 

planning process, Colorado analyzed the 

WRAP modeling and determined that 

emissions from the State do not 

significantly impact other states’ class I 

areas.19 Colorado accepted and 

incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling into its regional haze 

SIP, and the SIP included the controls 

assumed in the modeling. For these 

reasons, EPA determined that Colorado 

had satisfied the Regional Haze Rule 

requirements for consultation and had 

included controls in the SIP sufficient to 

address the relevant requirements 

related to impacts on Class I areas in 

other states. Therefore, we are proposing 

to approve the Colorado SIP as meeting 

the requirements of element 4 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 2006 

24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

F. Evaluation of CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Requirements 

As stated above, Colorado’s May 11, 

2012 interstate transport submission 

and June 4, 2010 infrastructure SIP 

certification for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS both overlooked the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The State submitted a 

clarification letter on March 12, 2015, 

which explained that the State had 

inadvertently left discussion of 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) out of the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 infrastructure certification, and 

referenced the four subsequent 

infrastructure submittals (for the 2008 

Pb, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 

SO2 NAAQS) that included a 

demonstration that Colorado’s SIP meets 

the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The 

State requested that the same 

demonstration used in all subsequent 

infrastructure submittals be applied to 

the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 certification 

submitted June 4, 2010. 

CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires 

that each SIP contain adequate 

provisions ensuring compliance with 

applicable requirements of CAA 

sections 126 and 115. Section 126(a) 

requires notification to affected, nearby 

states of major proposed new (or 

modified) sources. Sections 126(b) and 

(c) pertain to petitions by affected states 

to the Administrator regarding sources 

violating the ‘‘interstate transport’’ 

provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). 

Section 115 pertains to international 

transport of air pollution. 

As required by 40 CFR 

51.166(q)(2)(iv), Colorado’s SIPapproved PSD program requires notice 

to states whose lands may be affected by 

the emissions of sources subject to 

PSD.20 This suffices to meet the notice 

requirement of section 126(a). 

Colorado has no pending obligations 

under sections 126(c) or 115(b); 

therefore, its SIP currently meets the 

requirements of those sections. In 

summary, the SIP meets the 

requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. Therefore, we are proposing to 

approve the Colorado SIP as meeting the 

requirements of element 4 of CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 2006 24- 

hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve all four 

interstate transport elements of CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) from Colorado’s 

May 11, 2012 submission. This 

proposed approval is based on EPA’s 

finding that emissions from Colorado do 

not significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS in any other state and that the 

existing Colorado SIP is, therefore, 

adequate to meet the requirements of 

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

2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

110(a)(2)(D)(ii) portion of Colorado’s 

submission, based on our finding that 

the State’s existing SIP is adequate to 

meet the requirements of this element 

for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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, 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 91 / Tuesday, May 12, 2015 / Proposed Rules 27127 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• 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 seq.); 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and, 

• 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 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

The SIP is not approved to apply on 

any Indian reservation land or in any 

other area where 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 and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

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

Dated: April 29, 2015. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2015–11338 Filed 5–11–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0297; FRL–9927–54– 

Region 9] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality State 

Implementation Plans; Arizona; 

Infrastructure Requirements for Lead 

and Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

address the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) and 2008 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires that each State adopt 

and submit a SIP for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of each NAAQS. We refer 

to such SIP revisions as ‘‘infrastructure’’ 

SIPs because they are intended to 

address basic structural SIP 

requirements for each new or revised 

NAAQS including, but not limited to, 

legal authority, regulatory structure, 

resources, permit programs, monitoring 

and modeling necessary to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

standards. We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 11, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0297, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: Jeffrey Buss at buss.jeffrey@

epa.gov. 

3. Mail: Jeffrey Buss, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne, San Francisco, California 

94105. 

4. Hand or Courier Delivery: Jeffrey 

Buss, Air Planning Section (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne, San 

Francisco, California 94105. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2015– 

0297. 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 

the disclosure of which is restricted by 

statute. Do not submit information 

through www.regulations.gov or email 

that you consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected from disclosure. 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 docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Planning Office (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California 94105. EPA 

requests that you contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to schedule your 

inspection during normal business 

hours. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Buss, Office of Air Planning, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, (415) 947–4152, email: 

buss.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS