34218 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 3 

RIN 2900–AN64 

Clothing Allowance; Correction 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule; correcting 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) published a final rule on 

November 16, 2011, amending its 

adjudication regulations governing 

eligibility for clothing allowances. VA 

has since determined that certain 

language added to the final rule could 

be construed to impose a restriction that 

VA did not intend. This document 

corrects that error. 

DATES: This correction is effective June 

11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom 

Kniffen, Chief, Compensation Service, 

Veterans Benefits Administration, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 

Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 

20420, (202) 461–9725. This is not a 

toll-free number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 2, 2011, VA published a 

proposed rule (76 FR 5733) to revise 38 

CFR 3.810 to clarify the circumstances 

under which a veteran may be entitled 

to more than one clothing allowance. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) explained 

that a veteran who uses more than one 

prosthetic or orthopedic appliance or 

medication would be eligible for a 

clothing allowance for each such 

appliance or medication if each 

appliance or medication ‘‘[a]ffects a 

distinct article of clothing or 

outergarment.’’ 

On November 16, 2011, VA published 

the final rule (76 FR 70883). In the final 

rule, VA stated that it was revising 

proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) in order to 

‘‘clarify that the references to garments 

or clothing in this regulation are to 

types of garments, such as shirts, rather 

than to individual garments, such as a 

specific shirt’’ and to make clear that 

‘‘more than one clothing allowance is 

payable when more than one type of 

article of clothing or outergarment is 

affected.’’ The final rule revised 

paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to state that a veteran 

who uses more than one appliance or 

medication would be eligible for a 

clothing allowance for each such 

appliance or medication if each 

appliance or medication ‘‘[a]ffects more 

than one type of article of clothing or 

outergarment.’’ 

VA has determined that the language 

of the final rule could be construed to 

mean that each individual appliance or 

medication used by a veteran must 

affect more than one type of article of 

clothing or outergarment in order to 

qualify for a clothing allowance. As 

explained in the final-rule notice, 

however, VA did not intend to impose 

such a requirement, but intended only 

to clarify that each appliance or 

medication must affect a distinct type of 

article of clothing or outergarment, such 

as shirts, in order to qualify for a 

clothing allowance. Requiring each 

appliance or medication to affect more 

than one type of article of clothing or 

outergarment would impose an 

unintended restriction on eligibility for 

the clothing allowance and would create 

significant inconsistencies in VA’s 

clothing-allowance regulation. To 

correct this inadvertent error, VA is 

amending 38 CFR 3.810(a)(2)(ii) by 

replacing the words ‘‘more than one 

type’’ with the words ‘‘a distinct type’’. 

This change will make clear that an 

appliance or medication only needs to 

affect a distinct type of clothing or 

outergarment in order to qualify for a 

clothing allowance. This change does 

not alter the intended meaning of the 

regulation as explained in the proposed 

rule and the final rule notice, but would 

eliminate the potential for confusion or 

misinterpretation created by the 

ambiguous language included in the 

final rule. 

Pursuant to the Administrative 

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), VA has 

determined that notice and prior 

opportunity for comment on this 

correcting amendment are unnecessary 

and contrary to public interest. As 

stated above, this correction is needed 

to accurately reflect the intent of the 

final rule and codified regulation and 

ensure that the inadvertent error does 

not adversely affect claimants. We 

previously provided public notice in the 

Federal Register and considered public 

comments on the proposed rule. See 76 

FR 5733 and 76 FR 70883. VA’s intent 

and interpretation of § 3.810(a)(2)(ii) has 

not changed. This correction merely 

ensures clarity of VA’s intent and 

interpretation regarding the eligibility 

for a clothing allowance. For these 

reasons, VA has also determined 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) that there is 

good cause to make this change effective 

on the date of its publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, 

Health care, Pensions, Radioactive 

materials, Veterans, Vietnam. 

Approved: June 6, 2012. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Direc tor, Regulation Policy and Management, 

Office of the General Counsel, Department 

of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is corrected by 

making the following correcting 

amendment: 

PART 3—ADJUDICATION 

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, 

and Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3, 

subpart A continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 3.810(a)(2)(ii) by removing 

‘‘more than one type’’ and adding, in its 

place, ‘‘a distinct type’’. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14108 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0080; FRL–9683–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) on 

January 14, 2011, and March 10, 2011, 

addressing regional haze for the first 

implementation period that ends 2018. 

This action is being taken in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and EPA’s rules for states to 

prevent and remedy future and existing 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

in mandatory Class I areas through a 

regional haze program. As part of this 

action, EPA is also approving limits for 

the Alcoa facility that EPA finds satisfy 

the requirements for best available 

retrofit technology (BART). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0080. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34219 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

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

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Charles 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s Responses 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Synopsis of Proposed Rule 

Indiana submitted a plan to address 

regional haze on January 14, 2011, and 

supplemented it on March 10, 2011. 

This plan was intended to address the 

requirements in CAA section 169A, and 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule as codified at 

40 CFR 51.308. This rule was 

promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713). Further significant provisions 

were promulgated on July 6, 2005, 

providing further guidance on 

provisions related to BART. 

EPA proposed a limited approval of 

Indiana’s submittal on January 26, 2012 

(77 FR 3975). That action described the 

nature of the regional haze problem and 

the statutory and regulatory background 

for EPA’s review of Indiana’s regional 

haze plan. The proposal provided a 

lengthy delineation of the requirements 

that Indiana intended to meet, including 

requirements for mandating BART, 

consultation with other states in 

establishing goals representing 

reasonable further progress in mitigating 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, 

and adoption of limitations as necessary 

to implement a long term strategy (LTS) 

for reducing visibility impairment. 

Indiana’s control strategy addresses the 

regional haze rule for the first 

implementation period that ends 2018. 

Of particular interest were EPA’s 

findings regarding BART. Using 

modeling performed by the Lake 

Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), Indiana identified one nonelectric generating unit (non-EGU) 

source, Alcoa in Warrick County, as 

having sufficient impact to warrant 

being subject to a requirement 

representing BART. 

Indiana developed source-specific 

limits to mandate BART for Alcoa to 

comply with EPA’s regional haze rule. 

These limits are adopted into regulation 

326 of the Indiana Administrative Code 

(IAC), Article 26, Rule 2, of which 

include sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 

oxide (NOX), and particulate matter 

(PM) emission limits applicable to the 

Alcoa facility in Warrick County. In the 

proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed to 

conclude that the emission reductions 

from 326 IAC 26–2 would suffice to 

address the BART requirement for nonEGUs. 

II. Public Comments and EPA’s 

Responses 

The publication of EPA’s proposed 

rule on January 26, 2012 (77 FR 3975) 

initiated a 30-day public comment 

period that ended on February 27, 2012. 

During the public comment period on 

the proposed rulemaking on the Indiana 

regional haze plan we received 

comments from the United States Forest 

Service (FS) and the United States 

National Park Service (NPS). These 

comments and EPA’s responses are 

addressed in detail below. 

Comment #1: FS continues to disagree 

with the alternative BART scenario for 

the Alcoa facility. FS believes that 

emission reductions that could be used 

for reasonable progress purposes should 

not be creditable for alternative 

measures/BART purposes. FS further 

comments that requiring emission 

controls for Boilers 2 and 3, which are 

subject to BART, would be more 

appropriate for reasonable progress 

purposes instead of taking credit for 

emission reductions from Boiler 1, 

which is not subject to BART. 

Response #1: As stated in 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iv), the pertinent 

requirement is that the emission 

reductions of the alternative measure be 

‘‘surplus to reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP.’’ This point is explained in the 

preamble of the BART guidelines. 70 FR 

39143. Therefore, EPA finds the 

reductions at Boiler 1 to be a creditable 

part of Indiana’s alternative BART limits 

in lieu of full BART control of boilers 

2 and 3 and the potlines. 

The BART guidelines state that 

‘‘(2) The EPA does not believe that 

anything in the CAA or relevant case 

law prohibits a State from considering 

emissions reductions required to meet 

other CAA requirements when 

determining whether source by source 

BART controls are necessary to make 

reasonable progress.’’ This rule further 

states, ‘‘(3) * * * in lieu of BART 

programs be based on emissions 

reductions ‘surplus to reductions 

resulting from measures adopted to 

meet requirements as of the baseline 

date of the SIP.’ The baseline date for 

regional haze SIPs is 2002 * * *’’ 70 FR 

39143. 

Comment #2: For the Alcoa facility, 

FS comments that there is no technical 

reason that the controls for Boilers 2 and 

3 cannot achieve 92 percent or greater 

efficiency with wet Flue Gas 

Desulfurization (FGD) to meet BART. 

Response #2: EPA agrees with FS that 

wet FGD emission control technology 

commonly achieves a 92 percent or 

higher emission reduction. Alcoa used 

the 92 percent reduction level for the 

BART analysis for Boilers 2 and 3. 

However, Indiana is applying flexibility 

authorized in the regional haze rule to 

require less control of Boilers 2 and 3 

than the control equipment can achieve, 

requiring 90 percent control of these 

Boilers, while requiring additional, 

compensating control of Boiler 1, which 

still results in an overall improvement 

in visibility. 

Comment #3: FS comments that the 

increase in the sulfur content of coke for 

the BART-subject potlines (#2–#6), 

actually results in increased SO2

emissions with no control technology or 

alternative to offset the increase. The FS 

accepts that low sulfur coke may not be 

available after 2013, but asserts that if 

increased emissions from the facility 

occur, then Alcoa should look for an 

alternative to either control emissions 

from the potlines or offset those 

emissions if control technologies are too 

expensive. 

Response #3: The FS comment 

appears to reflect a misunderstanding of 

the situation. Indiana’s plan describes a 

BART determination that reflects an 

increase in sulfur content of coke used 

in the potlines, but Indiana’s submittal 

does not actually increase the SO2

emission limits that apply to these 

units. EPA did not agree with Indiana’s 

rationale for determining BART to 

reflect an increase in potline emissions, 

but EPA’s proposed, and now final, 

approval of Indiana’s BART 

determination for the potlines is based 

on the fact that the actual SO2 limits in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34220 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Indiana’s plan do not allow the SO2

emissions increase that the FS asserts to 

be allowed by Indiana’s plan. 

Comment #4: FS comments that 

‘‘Indiana continues to disagree with the 

need for a factor analysis of additional 

NOX control technologies.’’ FS notes 

Indiana’s comparison of its proposed 

BART limits against new source 

performance standards (NSPS) limits, 

but finds that this comparison does not 

address BART requirements in lieu of 

conducting a full analysis of all feasible 

control technologies. 

Response #4: Alcoa in fact did 

conduct a five factor BART analysis, as 

required by the Indiana BART rule and 

the BART guidelines. Alcoa identified 

low NOX burners (LNB), LNB combined 

with over-fire air, selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR) and selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems as 

feasible technologies to control NOX

from boilers. Alcoa concluded that SCR 

and SNCR were not cost effective. 

Indiana reached the same conclusions 

regarding these controls, and EPA 

agrees. Indiana set limits that are 

significantly tighter than the NSPS, and 

notes the state did not conduct a 

complete and adequate analysis of 

BART for the Alcoa facility. 

Comment #5: NPS believes that EPA 

should apply its economic incentive 

policy to Indiana’s regional haze SIP in 

accordance with policy stated in a letter 

to Wisconsin regarding Wisconsin’s 

regional haze SIP. NPS provides what it 

considers to be quotes from EPA’s letter 

that advise Wisconsin not to take credit 

for various reductions that are or will be 

required by other regulatory 

requirements. 

Response #5: EPA’s letter to 

Wisconsin does not include the 

statements that NPS attributes to EPA. 

EPA finds the reductions that Indiana 

takes credit for to be fully creditable. 

The primary applicability of the 

economic incentive policy to the 

Wisconsin plan related to the question 

of whether the baseline emissions of a 

subsequently shutdown boiler should be 

included in determining a limit on the 

combined emissions of multiple boilers. 

This situation does not apply in 

Indiana, and so the actual comments in 

EPA’s letter to Wisconsin are not 

germane to Indiana. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is finalizing the limited approval 

of Indiana’s regional haze plan 

submitted by IDEM on January 11, 2011, 

and March 10, 2011, addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

The revisions seek to address CAA and 

regional haze rule requirements for 

states to remedy any existing 

anthropogenic and prevent future 

impairment of visibility at Class I areas. 

Indiana’s plan satisfies a number of 

elements of the regional haze 

requirements. Most notably, EPA 

concludes that Indiana has satisfied the 

requirements for BART in 40 CFR 

51.308(e) for non-EGUs and for PM from 

EGUs. Indiana’s plan identifies the Class 

I areas that the state’s emissions affect. 

Indiana demonstrates that the state has 

consulted with other states as 

appropriate in establishing reasonable 

progress goals and identifying the 

reductions need in Indiana to meet 

those goals. For these reasons, and for 

the SIP strengthening effect of Indiana’s 

plan, EPA is granting limited approval 

of Indiana’s plan. 

In conjunction with the above actions, 

EPA is approving regulation 326 IAC 

26–2 for incorporation into the state 

implementation plan. These limits on 

Alcoa’s emissions of SO2, NOX, and PM 

are state enforceable and, with this SIP 

approval, are now Federally 

enforceable. It should be noted that rule 

326 IAC 26–2 contains an erroneous 

citation, citing limits in 326 IAC 7–4– 

10(a)(4) rather than 326 IAC 7–4– 

10(a)(3). EPA nevertheless approves the 

rule for several reasons: (1) The 

pertinent limits are already an approved 

part of Indiana’s SIP and are therefore 

already enforceable; (2) the State’s 

intent is clear; and (3) Indiana intends 

to correct this reference. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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 August 10, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 112 / Monday, June 11, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 34221 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action 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, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: May 29, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart P—Indiana 

■ 2. Section 52.770 is amended by 

adding a new entry at the end of the 

table in paragraph (c) for ‘‘Article 26. 

Regional Haze’’ and by adding a new 

entry in alphabetical order in the table 

in paragraph (e) for ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.770 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA REGULATIONS

Indiana citation Subject Indiana 

effective date EPA approval date Notes 

*******

Article 26. Regional Haze 

Rule 2. Best Available Retrofit Technology Emission Limitations 

26–2–1 ......................................... Applicability .................................. 3/09/2011 6/11/2012, [Insert page

number where the document begins].

26–2–2 ......................................... Alcoa emission limitations and 

compliance methods.

3/09/2011 6/11/2012, [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

* * * * * (e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED INDIANA NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Title Indiana date EPA approval Explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ............................ 01/14/2011 and 03/10/2011 ............................ 6/11/2012, [Insert page 

number where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–13955 Filed 6–8–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0476; FRL 9682–2] 

RIN 2060–AR56 

Air Quality Designations for the 2008 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Several Counties in 

Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; 

Corrections to Inadvertent Errors in 

Prior Designations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule completes the initial 

air quality designations for the 2008 

primary and secondary national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

ozone. On April 30, 2012, the EPA 

promulgated the initial ozone air quality 

designations for all areas in the United 

States except for 12 counties in Illinois, 

Indiana and Wisconsin, which the EPA 

was still evaluating. This action 

designates those counties. The EPA is 

designating all or parts of 11 counties as 

the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 

nonattainment area. The EPA is 

designating the remaining county and 

parts of counties as unclassifiable/ 

attainment. The Chicago-Naperville, ILIN-WI nonattainment area is being 

classified by operation of law as a 

Marginal area according to the severity 

of its air quality problem. This rule also 

corrects inadvertent errors in the 

regulatory text regarding the designation 

of three areas in the ozone designation 

rule signed on April 30, 2012. 

DATES: The effective date of this rule is 

July 20, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2008–0476. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in the docket or in hard 

copy at the Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES