16286 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(c)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

‘‘Section 127.701’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) EPA-APPROVED PENNSYLVANIA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/Subject State effective 

date EPA Approval date Additional explanation/ § 52.2063 citation 

*******

Subchapter I—Plan Approval and Operating Permit Fees 

Section 127.701 ........................... General provisions ....................... 12/14/13 3/27/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Paragraphs (b) and (c) revised. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06968 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342; FRL–9925–16– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Pennsylvania; 

Pennsylvania Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan Revision: Sulfur 

Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxide Best 

Available Retrofit Technology Limits 

for the Cheswick Power Plant 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of a 

revision to the Pennsylvania State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP). 

This SIP revision addresses the sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOX) 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) requirements for Boiler Number 

1 of the Cheswick Generating Station 

(Cheswick) in Allegheny County. EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of the SIP 

revision for Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX

BART requirements on the basis that the 

revision corrects an error in the SIP and 

strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP, while 

EPA is also finalizing a limited 

disapproval of this part of the SIP 

revision because the SIP revision relies 

on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

and not the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) which has replaced CAIR. 

This final action is in accordance with 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA) and EPA’s rules for BART. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

April 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0342. 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 Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality 

Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market 

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by 

email at shandruk.irene@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and their precursors (e.g., SO2,

NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5), which impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. Section 169A of the CAA 

establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory class I Federal 

areas which impairment results from 

manmade air pollution’’ and requires 

SIPs for states whose emissions may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

Class I areas to contain emission limits, 

compliance schedules and other 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 16287 

1EPA’s regulations implementing CAA section 

169A are located at 40 CFR 51.308 and require 

states to establish long-term strategies for making 

reasonable progress toward meeting the national 

goal in CAA section 169A. 

2CAIR required certain states like Pennsylvania 

to reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

significantly contribute to downwind 

nonattainment of the 1997 NAAQS for PM2.5 and 

ozone. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR was 

later found to be inconsistent with the requirements 

of the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See 

North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). The court left CAIR in place until replaced 

by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. Id. 

3CSAPR was proposed by EPA to replace CAIR 

and to help states reduce air pollution and attain 

CAA standards. See 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010) 

(proposal) and 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (final 

rule). The United States Court of Appeals for the 

D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) issued a decision in EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 

(D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR 

in place pending the promulgation of a valid 

replacement rule. Subsequently, on April 29, 2014, 

the United States Supreme Court reversed the 

August 21, 2012 opinion of the D.C. Circuit which 

had vacated CSAPR and remanded the matter to the 

D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME 

Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). 

After the Supreme Court’s decision, EPA filed a 

motion to lift the stay of CSAPR and asked the D.C. 

Circuit to toll CSAPR’s compliance deadlines by 

three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets 

apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), 

and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 

and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On 

October 23, 2014, the D.C. 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. EPA views the D.C. 

Circuit’s October 23, 2014 Order as also granting 

EPA’s request to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines. EPA commenced implementation of 

CSAPR on January 1, 2015. 79 FR 71663 (Dec. 3, 

2014) (interim final rule revising CSAPR 

compliance deadlines). 

4 In response to a petition for review of EPA’s 

limited approval of the Pennsylvania regional haze 

SIP in the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Third Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a 

voluntary remand without vacatur. On April 30, 

2014, EPA reissued its final limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania SIP to implement the 

Commonwealth’s regional haze program for the first 

planning period through 2018. 79 FR 24340. 

5The BART Guidelines provide a process for 

making BART determinations that states and local 

agencies can use in implementing the regional haze 

BART requirements on a source-by-source basis, as 

provided in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1). 

conditions in Class I areas.1 A regional 

haze SIP generally must include, among 

other measures, source-specific BART 

emission limits for each source subject 

to BART. A detailed discussion of the 

requirements of the regional haze 

program can be found in our earlier 

notice proposing action on 

Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP. See 77 

FR 3984 (January 26, 2012). 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2). EPA made such a 

demonstration for the CAIR.2 70 FR 

39104 (July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations 

provided that states participating in the 

CAIR cap and trade program under 40 

CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPAapproved CAIR SIP or which remain 

subject to the CAIR Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR 

part 97, do not require affected BART 

eligible electric generating units (EGUs) 

to install, operate, and maintain BART 

for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(4). EPA subsequently 

determined that the trading programs in 

CSAPR, which was promulgated to 

replace CAIR, would achieve greater 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal than would BART and 

could also serve as an alternative to 

source-by-source BART. See 77 FR 

33641 (June 7, 2012).3

On December 20, 2010, PADEP 

submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania 

SIP to address regional haze as required 

by the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308. At the 

time of the development and 

submission of Pennsylvania’s December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission, 

EPA had not yet promulgated CSAPR to 

replace CAIR. On July 13, 2012, EPA 

finalized a limited approval of the 

Pennsylvania regional haze SIP. 77 FR 

41279. Our approval was limited due to 

Pennsylvania’s reliance upon CAIR for 

certain regional haze requirements 

including BART for EGUs. On June 7, 

2012, EPA had also finalized the limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s regional 

haze SIP (and other states’ regional haze 

SIPs that relied similarly on CAIR) due 

to its reliance on CAIR as EPA had 

issued the CSAPR to replace CAIR at 

that time. 77 FR 33641. On June 7, 2012, 

EPA also finalized a limited FIP for 

Pennsylvania and other states, which 

merely substituted reliance on EPA’s 

more recent CSAPR NOX and SO2

trading programs for EGUs for the SIP’s 

reliance on CAIR.4 See 77 FR 33641. 

For the December 20, 2010 regional 

haze SIP, the Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD) had performed a 

BART analysis for Cheswick, a 

Pennsylvania EGU. In the May 4, 2009 

Cheswick BART review memo, ACHD 

stated it performed its BART analysis in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 

40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, Guidelines 

for BART Determinations Under the 

Regional Haze Rule (BART Guidelines).5

The May 4, 2009 Cheswick BART 

review memo was included in 

Pennsylvania’s December 20, 2010 

regional haze SIP (in Appendix J) and 

specifically stated that SO2 and NOX

limits were not considered in the memo 

since the source was participating in 

CAIR. The May 4, 2009 BART Review 

Memo for Cheswick and the December 

20, 2010 regional haze SIP submission 

also contained an error concerning the 

recommended particulate matter (PM) 

BART for Cheswick. 

The December 20, 2010 regional haze 

SIP submission explicitly provided that 

BART for Pennsylvania EGUs was 

participation in CAIR; however, the SIP 

submission incorrectly identified SO2

and NOX BART emission limits for 

Cheswick in error. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA 

Analysis 

On March 25, 2014, the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

through PADEP submitted a SIP 

revision to revise the incorrect PM 

BART emission limit for Cheswick’s 

Boiler No. 1 and to remove the errant 

inclusion of the BART SO2 and NOX

emission limits for Cheswick’s Boiler 

No. 1 from the regional haze SIP 

because Pennsylvania intended CAIR as 

SO2 and NOX BART for all EGUs 

including Cheswick. EPA has corrected 

the PM BART error in a separate 

rulemaking. See 80 FR 2834 (January 21, 

2015). On January 21, 2015 (80 FR 

2841), EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

proposing limited approval and limited 

disapproval of this SIP revision to 

correct the SO2 and NOX BART for 

Cheswick. As explained in detail in the 

NPR, EPA proposed a limited approval 

to the March 25, 2014 SIP revision to 

the Cheswick SO2 and NOX BART limits 

included in the Pennsylvania regional 

haze SIP because the removal of the 

specific SO2 and NOX emission limits 

corrects an error in the regional haze SIP 

and strengthens the Pennsylvania SIP 

overall through replacing the incorrect 

BART limits with Cheswick’s 

participation in an emissions trading 

program. EPA proposed a limited 

disapproval to the portion of the SIP 

revision addressing SO2 and NOX BART 

for Cheswick because the revision relied 

on replacing the specific SO2 and NOX

limits with CAIR which the D.C. Circuit 

remanded to EPA and which EPA 

replaced with CSAPR. EPA began 

implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015 as the emissions trading program 

for SO2 and NOX for EGUs in certain 

states including Pennsylvania following 

the D.C. Circuit’s lifting of the stay on 

CSAPR. See EME Homer City 

Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11–1302 

(D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. See 

also 79 FR 71663 (interim final rule 

revising CSAPR compliance deadlines). 

Although CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

FIP within two years after disapproving 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
16288 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6 In the NPR, EPA found this SIP revision to 

Cheswick’s BARTs complies with section 110(l) of 

the CAA and will not interfere with any applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA, such as the visibility and 

regional haze provisions of sections 169A and 169B 

of the CAA. 

a SIP submission in whole or in part, 

unless EPA approves a SIP revision 

correcting the deficiencies, EPA believes 

our limited disapproval of the March 25, 

2014 SIP submission does not result in 

any new FIP obligation for EPA because 

we already promulgated a FIP on June 

7, 2012 to address the identified 

deficiency (replacing CAIR with CSAPR 

for SO2 and NOX BART for 

Pennsylvania EGUs). Thus, as explained 

in the NPR, the June 7, 2012 FIP fully 

addresses Cheswick’s SO2 and NOX

BART because Cheswick is a 

Pennsylvania EGU subject to CSAPR. 

Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final 

disapproval of a submittal that 

addresses a requirement of part D of title 

I of the CAA (CAA sections 171–193) or 

is required in response to a finding of 

substantial inadequacy as described in 

CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP Call) starts a 

sanctions clock. Pennsylvania’s March 

25, 2014 SIP revision submittal for 

revising Cheswick’s BART was not 

submitted to meet either of these 

requirements. Therefore, our limited 

disapproval of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

submission concerning Cheswick’s SO2

and NOX BART does not trigger 

mandatory sanctions under CAA section 

179. Other specific requirements and 

the rationale for EPA’s proposed action 

are explained in the NPR and will not 

be restated here.6 No adverse public 

comments were received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of 

the portion of the Pennsylvania March 

25, 2014 revision to its regional haze SIP 

which removes specific SO2 and NOX

BART emission limitations for 

Cheswick set in error and is finalizing 

a limited disapproval of the SIP revision 

due to its reliance upon CAIR, which 

has been replaced with CSAPR. As EPA 

issued a FIP for SO2 and NOX BART 

emission limitations for EGUs in 

Pennsylvania, which includes 

Cheswick, no further action by EPA is 

required to address the limited 

disapproval. This conclusion is based 

on our review of the March 25, 2014 SIP 

revision as well as Pennsylvania’s 

December 20, 2010 regional haze SIP 

submission, including technical data 

and supporting analysis. This final 

action concludes that Cheswick’s 

participation in CSAPR supersedes the 

previous SO2 and NOX BART 

determinations for Cheswick included 

in Pennsylvania’s regional haze SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 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 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). 

In addition, 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. 

B. 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. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. 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 26, 2015. 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 

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 action revising the SO2 and NOX

BART emission limitations for 

Cheswick in Pennsylvania’s 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, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

Dated: March 10, 2015. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 59 / Friday, March 27, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 16289 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding a new entry 

following the existing entries for 

‘‘Regional Haze Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory 

SIP revision Applicable geographic area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA Approval date Additional explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ..................... Statewide ..................................... 3/25/14 3/27/15 [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

Rulemaking pertains to 

Boiler No. 1 of the 

Cheswick Power Plant 

in Allegheny County. 

Limited approval removes 

SO2 and NOX Best 

Available Retrofit Technology limits. Limited 

disapproval relates to 

the Federal Implementation Plan at § 52.2042(b) 

and (c). 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–06965 Filed 3–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0083; FRL–9924–73– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Placer County 

Air Pollution Control District and the 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the Placer 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(PCAPCD) and Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from the 

surface coating of plastic parts and 

products, metalworking fluids (MWF) 

and direct-contact lubricants (DCL). We 

are approving local rules that regulate 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on May 26, 

2015 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by April 27, 

2015. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0083, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, 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: 

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–3024, lazarus.arnold@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? 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES