19932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 

must not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or other 

CAA requirements (see CAA section 

110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 

control requirements in nonattainment 

areas without ensuring equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions (see CAA 

section 193). 

The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin 

is an ozone nonattainment area 

classified as extreme for the 1-hour 

ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

revision/relaxation requirements for the 

applicable criteria pollutants include 

the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. It contains clear thresholds 

and control requirements, and it 

strengthens the SIP by adding new 

controls for LCAFs. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule(s) 

In our TSD we identify additional 

control options that may be reasonably 

available for implementation in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast area (see 

‘‘Additional Recommendations’’) and 

that we recommend for the next time 

the local agency modifies the rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rule because we believe it 

fulfills all relevant requirements. We 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until May 14, 2015. 

Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District Rule 223—Emission Reduction 

Permits for Large Confined Animal 

Facilities, as listed in Table 1 of this 

notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08469 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0082; 9926–15– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California SIP, 

Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution 

Control Districts; Permit Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions clarify, update, 

and revise exemptions from New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting requirements, 

for various air pollution sources. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19933 

OAR–2015–0082, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material, 

large maps), and some may not be 

publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Larry Maurin, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3943, maurin.lawrence@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 

rules and rule revisions? 

II. 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 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal, including the dates they 

were revised by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revision date Submittal date 

VCAPCD .......................................... 23 Exemption from Permit ................................................. 11/12/13 05/13/14 

EKAPCD ........................................... 202 Permit Exemptions ........................................................ 01/13/11 06/21/11 

On July 15, 2011 and July 18, 2014, 

EPA determined that the submittal for 

EKAPCD Rule 202 and VCAPCD Rule 

23, respectively, met the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. 

The completeness criteria must be met 

before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved an earlier version of 

VCAPCD Rule 23 into the SIP on 

December 7, 2000 (65 FR 76567). Since 

the last approval of Rule 23 into the SIP, 

VCAPCD has adopted revisions on 

November 11, 2003; April 13, 2004; 

October 12, 2004; September 12, 2006; 

April 8, 2008; and April 12, 2011. 

EKAPCD Rule 202 was last approved 

into the SIP on July 6, 1982 (47 FR 

29231). Since the last approval of Rule 

202 into the SIP, EKAPCD has adopted 

revisions on April 25, 1983; November 

18, 1985; August 22, 1989; April 30, 

1990; August 19, 1991; May 2, 1996; 

January 8, 1998; March 13, 2003; and 

January 8, 2004. 

All of these revisions were submitted 

to EPA; however, EPA has not taken 

action on any of these submittals. While 

we can act on only the most recently 

submitted version, we have reviewed 

materials provided with previous 

submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) requires states to submit 

regulations that control volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate 

matter and other air pollutants which 

harm human health and the 

environment. Permitting rules were 

developed as part of the local air 

district’s programs to control these 

pollutants. 

The purposes of VCAPCD Rule 23 

(Exemption from Permit) and EKAPCD 

Rule 202 (Permit Exemptions) are to 

identify when a new or modified source 

is exempted from the requirement to 

obtain a permit prior to construction. 

Rule 202 also requires recordkeeping to 

verify and maintain any exemption. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

The relevant statutory provisions for 

our review of the new and existing 

exemptions in the submitted rules 

include CAA sections 110(a) and 110(l). 

Section 110(a) requires that SIP rules be 

enforceable, while section 110(l) 

precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions 

that would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. In 

addition, for satisfying CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), we have reviewed the 

submitted rules for compliance with 

EPA implementing regulations for NSR, 

including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 

CFR 51.165. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

1. Attainment Status of VCAPCD and 

EKAPCD 

Ventura County is designated as a 

serious nonattainment area for the 2008 

and 1997 federal 8-hour ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). It is designated as attainment 

or unclassifiable for all other NAAQS. 

Eastern Kern County is designated as 

a marginal and moderate nonattainment 

area for the 2008 and 1997 federal 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS, respectively, and 

as a serious nonattainment area for the 

PM10 NAAQS. It is designated as 

attainment or unclassifiable for all other 

NAAQS. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19934 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

2. Minor NSR Permitting Requirements 

and Analysis 

The revised VCAPCD and EKAPCD 

rules affect the minor source NSR 

programs by revising existing 

exemptions, adding new exemptions, 

and exempting minor agricultural 

sources with emissions less than 50 

percent of the major source thresholds. 

The requirements in 40 CFR 51.160, 

subsections (a) through (e), provide the 

basis for evaluating exemptions from 

NSR permitting. The basic purpose of 

NSR permitting is set forth in 40 CFR 

51.160(a), requiring NSR SIPs to set 

forth legally enforceable procedures that 

enable the State or local agency to 

determine whether the construction or 

modification of a stationary source 

would result in a violation of applicable 

portions of the control strategy, or 

would interfere with attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS. Section 

51.160(e) provides that the procedures 

must identify types and sizes of 

stationary sources that will be subject to 

NSR permitting review. We view this 

provision as allowing a State to exempt 

certain types and sizes of stationary 

sources so long as the program 

continues to serve the purposes outlined 

in 40 CFR 51.160(a). Thus, the revised 

and new exemptions discussed in detail 

in the TSDs, and the exemptions for 

non-major agricultural sources whose 

actual emissions (excluding fugitive 

emissions) are less than 50 percent of 

the major source thresholds are 

approvable so long as the minor source 

permitting programs (i.e. including the 

exemptions) continue to provide the 

necessary information to allow the 

Districts to determine whether 

construction of new or modified 

stationary sources would result in a 

violation of applicable portions of the 

control strategies or would result in 

interference with attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS. 

Under 40 CFR 51.160, the Districts 

have discretion in conducting the minor 

sources permitting programs to exempt 

certain small or de minimus sources. 

Congress directed the States and 

Districts to exercise the primary 

responsibility under the CAA to tailor 

air quality control measures, including 

minor source permitting programs, to 

the State’s needs. See Train v. NRDC, 

421 U.S. 60, 79 (1975) (States make the 

primary decisions over how to achieve 

CAA requirements); Union Electric Co. 

v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Greenbaum 

v. EPA, 370 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 2006). 

EPA has reviewed the submitted 

VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules in 

accordance with CAA Section 110(a) 

and 40 CFR 51.160 as described above. 

In our evaluation, EPA has determined 

that the emissions which may result 

from the revised and new exemptions 

set forth in the submitted VCAPCD and 

EKAPCD rules meet acceptable de 

minimus criteria as allowed in 40 CFR 

51.160(e). See the attached TSDs for 

each district for more information on 

these revised and new exemptions. 

The submitted rules also add a new 

exemption for new or modified minor 

agricultural sources whose actual 

emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) 

would be less than 50% of the 

applicable major source thresholds. 

With respect to such minor agricultural 

sources, we conclude that this 

exemption is approvable because, as 

discussed in more detail below in 

addressing CAA Section 110(l), the 

exemption will not result in a violation 

of applicable portions of the control 

strategies and would not result in 

interference with attainment or 

maintenance of a NAAQS. 

EPA has also evaluated the revised 

VCAPCD Rule 23 and EKAPCD Rule 202 

for consistency with CAA Section 110(l) 

requirements. As noted above, the new 

exemptions in Rule 23, would result in 

de minimus increases in emissions. For 

the new exemption for new or modified 

minor agricultural sources whose actual 

emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) 

would be less than 50% of the 

applicable major source thresholds, EPA 

has determined that this exemption 

would not interfere with reasonable 

further progress and attainment of any 

of the NAAQS in Ventura County or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA and thus is approvable under 

sections 110(l) because of (1) the limited 

nature of all new exemptions, (2) the 

presence of other regulatory controls for 

exempt agricultural sources, (3) the low 

background concentrations for the 

NAAQS pollutants in Ventura County 

other than ozone, and (4) the fact that 

the submitted ozone plan for Ventura 

County does not rely on NSR controls 

for minor agricultural sources and 

shows that the downward trend in 

ozone precursor emissions in Ventura 

County is predicted to continue well 

into the future. 

The new exemptions in EKAPCD Rule 

202 will result in de minimus increases 

in emissions and would result in a 

strengthening of the SIP. For the new 

exemption for new or modified minor 

agricultural sources whose actual 

emissions (excluding fugitive PM10) 

would be less than 50% of the 

applicable major source thresholds, EPA 

has determined that this exemption 

would not interfere with reasonable 

further progress and attainment of any 

of the NAAQS in the EKAPCD or any 

other applicable requirement of the 

CAA and thus is approvable under CAA 

Section 110(l). Similar to Ventura 

County, these revisions are approvable 

for EKAPCD under section 110(l) of the 

Act because of (1) the limited nature of 

all new exemptions, (2) the narrowing of 

several existing exemptions, (3) the 

presence of other regulatory controls for 

exempt agricultural sources, (4) the low 

ambient concentrations for the NAAQS 

pollutants in EKAPCD other than ozone, 

and (5) emissions projections that 

assume no NSR controls for minor 

agricultural sources yet the emissions 

projections decline or hold steady well 

into the future for PM10 and the ozone 

precursors. 

The TSDs for each District rule have 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agencies modify the 

rules. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA considers the submitted 

rules to fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

as described in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act. We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. 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. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

the VCAPCD and EKAPCD rules 

regarding exemptions from permit 

requirements discussed in section I.A of 

this preamble. The EPA has made, and 

will continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19935 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, 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 Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: March 20, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08467 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0254; FRL–9926–00– 

Region 8] 

Determinations of Attainment of the 

1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter 

Standards for the Libby, Montana 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to make two 

separate and independent 

determinations regarding the Libby, 

Montana nonattainment area for the 

1997 annual fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS). First, EPA is 

proposing to determine that the Libby 

nonattainment area attained the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS by the applicable 

attainment date, April 2010. This 

proposed determination is based on 

quality-assured and certified ambient air 

quality data for the 2007–2009 

monitoring period. Second, EPA is 

proposing that the Libby nonattainment 

area has continued to attain the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS, based on qualityassured and certified ambient air quality 

data for the 2012–2014 monitoring 

period. Based on the second 

determination, EPA also proposes to 

suspend certain nonattainment area 

planning obligations. These 

determinations do not constitute a 

redesignation to attainment. The Libby 

nonattainment area will remain 

designated nonattainment for the 1997 

annual PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as 

EPA determines that the Libby 

nonattainment area meets the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requirements for 

redesignation to attainment, including 

an approved maintenance plan. These 

proposed actions are being taken under 

the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0254, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 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–2014– 

0254. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means 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 http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS