Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10583 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

United States Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. 2012–1] 

Copyright Office Fees 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking: 

Extension of reply comment periods. 

SUMMARY: The United States Copyright 

Office is extending the deadline for 

filing reply comments regarding its 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

concerning the establishment of a fee 

schedule for filing cable and satellite 

statements of account for use of the 

statutory licenses that provide for the 

secondary transmission of broadcast 

programming by cable and satellite 

companies. 

DATES: Reply comments on the 

proposed regulation must be received in 

the Office of the General Counsel of the 

Copyright Office no later than 5 p.m. 

Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 

February 22, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that reply comments be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

submission page is posted on the 

Copyright Office Web site at http:// 

www.copyright.gov/docs/newfees/ 

comments/. The Web site interface 

requires submitters to complete a form 

specifying name and other required 

information, and to upload comments as 

an attachment. To meet accessibility 

standards, all comments must be 

uploaded in a single file in either the 

Adobe Portable Document File (PDF) 

format that contains searchable, 

accessible text (not an image); Microsoft 

Word; WordPerfect; Rich Text Format 

(RTF); or ASCII text file format (not a 

scanned document). The maximum file 

size is 6 megabytes (MB). The name of 

the submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted publicly on the Copyright Office 

Web site exactly as they are received, 

along with names and organizations if 

provided. If electronic submission of 

comments is not feasible, please contact 

the U.S. Copyright Office at (202) 707– 

8380 for special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Rivet, Budget Analyst, or Melissa 

Dadant, Senior Advisor for Operations 

and Special Projects, at (202) 707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 6, 2012, the U.S. Copyright 

Office published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) announcing a 

revised schedule of fees for filing semiannual statements of account pursuant 

to 17 U.S.C. 111, 119, and 122 based 

upon a new cost study. 77 FR 72,788 

(December 6, 2012). Comments to the 

proposed fees were due on January 7, 

2013 and the Office received three 

comments at that time, including a 

comment from the National Cable & 

Telecommunications Association 

(‘‘NCTA’’). The Office previously 

granted an extension of time to file reply 

comments to February 15, 2013 in 

response to NCTA’s motion requesting 

additional time to consider the Office’s 

response to a Freedom of Information 

Act (‘‘FOIA’’) request for the cost 

studies referenced in the Office’s 

December 6 notice announcing new 

proposed fees. It appears that more time 

is necessary to consider this information 

and the Office is thus extending the 

time for all stakeholders to file reply 

comments to 5:00 p.m. EST February 22, 

2013. 

Dated: February 11, 2013. 

Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03449 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0028; A–1–FRL– 

9779–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Massachusetts; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for the 1997 8- 

Hour Ozone Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Massachusetts. These SIP revisions 

consist of a demonstration that 

Massachusetts meets the requirements 

of reasonably available control 

technology for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC) 

set forth by the Clean Air Act with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Additionally, we are 

proposing approval of updates to two 

existing regulations limiting emissions 

of volatile organic compounds. This 

action is being taken in accordance with 

the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R01–OAR–2013–0028 by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: arnold.anne@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (617) 918–0047. 

4. Mail: ‘‘Docket Identification 

Number EPA–R01–OAR–2013–0028,’’ 

Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail 

Code OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109— 

3912. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver 

your comments to: Anne Arnold, 

Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 

Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air 

Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office 

Square—Suite 100, (mail Code OEP05– 

2), Boston, MA 02109—3912. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R01–OAR–2013– 

0028. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov, or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10584 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commonwealth’s submittal was made to 

address RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

and does not address the 2008 8-hour ozone 

standard of 0.075 parts per million. 

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 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, i.e., 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 in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA New England 

Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem 

Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 

Post Office Square—Suite 100, Boston, 

MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, 

you contact the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding legal holidays. 

In addition, copies of the State 

submittals are also available for public 

inspection during normal business 

hours, by appointment at the Division of 

Air Quality Control, Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, 

Boston, MA 02108. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob 

McConnell, Air Quality Planning Unit, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

EPA New England Regional Office, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail 

Code: OEP05–2), Boston, MA 02109– 

3912, telephone number (617) 918– 

1046, fax number (617) 918–0046, email 

mcconnell.robert@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. Additionally, the phrase ‘‘the 

Commonwealth’’ refers to the state of 

Massachusetts. The following outline is 

provided to aid in locating information 

in this preamble. 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. Summary of Massachusetts’ SIP Revisions 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’ SIP 

Revisions 

a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements 

b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

On January 31, 2008, the State of 

Massachusetts submitted a formal 

revision to its SIP. The SIP revision 

consists of information documenting 

how Massachusetts complied with the 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard.1 Additionally, on 

June 1, 2010, Massachusetts submitted 

updates to two regulations that limit 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions, one of which further 

restricted emissions from pressurevacuum (PV) valves used by gasoline 

service stations, and another that 

updates an existing regulation limiting 

VOC emissions from solvent cleaning 

operations. The Commonwealth’s 

submittals requested that they be 

incorporated into the Massachusetts 

SIP. 

Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) require states to 

implement RACT in areas classified as 

moderate (and higher) non-attainment 

for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of 

the Act requires RACT in states located 

in the ozone transport region (OTR). 

Specifically, these areas are required to 

implement RACT for all major VOC and 

NOX emissions sources and for all 

sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is 

a document issued by EPA which 

establishes a ‘‘presumptive norm’’ for 

RACT for a specific VOC source 

category. A related set of documents, 

Alternative Control Techniques (ACT) 

documents, exists primarily for NOX

control requirements. States must 

submit rules or negative declarations for 

CTG source categories, but not for 

sources in ACT categories. However, 

RACT must be imposed on major 

sources of NOX, and some of those 

major sources may be within a sector 

covered by an ACT document. 

In 1997, EPA revised the health-based 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) averaged over 

an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8- 

hour ozone standard based on scientific 

evidence demonstrating that ozone 

causes adverse health effects at lower 

ozone concentrations and over longer 

periods of time than was understood 

when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone 

standard was set. EPA determined that 

the 8-hour standard would be more 

protective of human health, especially 

with regard to children and adults who 

are active outdoors and individuals with 

a pre-existing respiratory disease such 

as asthma. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 

23858), EPA designated areas 

attainment or nonattainment with 

respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. The entire state of 

Massachusetts was designated 

nonattainment and classified as 

moderate, as two nonattainment areas. 

See 40 CFR 81.322. 

On November 29, 2005, EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register that outlined the obligations 

that areas found to be in nonattainment 

of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

needed to address (see 70 FR 71612). 

This rule, referred to as the ‘‘Phase 2 

Implementation rule,’’ contained, 

among other things, a description of 

EPA’s expectations for states with RACT 

obligations. The Phase 2 

Implementation rule indicated that 

states could meet RACT through the 

establishment of new or more stringent 

requirements that meet RACT control 

levels, through a certification that 

previously adopted RACT controls in 

their SIP approved by EPA under the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS represent adequate 

RACT control levels for 8-hour 

attainment purposes, or with a 

combination of these two approaches. In 

addition, a State must submit a negative 

declaration in instances where there are 

no CTG sources. 

II. Summary of Massachusetts’ SIP 

Revisions 

On January 31, 2008, Massachusetts 

submitted a demonstration that its 

regulatory framework for stationary 

sources meets the criteria for RACT as 

defined in EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation rule. The 

Commonwealth held a public hearing 

on the RACT program on January 18, 

2008. Massachusetts’ RACT submittal 

notes that its prior statewide 

designation as nonattainment for the 1- 

hour ozone standard resulted in the 

adoption of stringent controls for major 

sources of VOC and NOX, including 

RACT level controls. Therefore, as 

allowed for within EPA’s Phase 2 

Implementation rule, much of the 

Commonwealth’s submittal consists of a 

review of RACT controls adopted under 

the 1-hour ozone standard and an 

indication of whether those previously 

adopted controls still represent RACT 

under the 1997 ozone standard. 

Additionally, Massachusetts notes that 

as a member state of the Ozone 

Transport Commission (OTC) it works 

with that organization to identify and 

adopt, as deemed appropriate, 

regulations on additional VOC and NOX

categories beyond those for which EPA 

has issued CTGs or ACT documents. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10585 

2This rulemaking does not address 

Massachusetts’ response to the CTGs that EPA 

issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008. 

With regard to VOC controls, the 

Commonwealth’s submittal identifies 

the specific control measures that have 

been previously adopted to control 

emissions from VOC sources, reaffirms 

negative declarations for some CTG 

categories, and describes updates being 

considered to strengthen three VOC 

control regulations to ensure that they 

will continue to represent RACT under 

the 1997 ozone standard. A table named 

‘‘Table RACT–1’’ within Massachusetts’ 

submittal contains a summary of the 

state’s response to each of the CTG 

categories that EPA issued through 

2006.2 The table identifies the specific 

state rule, where relevant, that is in 

place, and the date that EPA approved 

the rule into the Massachusetts SIP. A 

table labeled ‘‘Table RACT–2’’ within 

the Commonwealth’s submittal 

identifies the major VOC sources in the 

state that are not covered by an ACT or 

CTG document. The state has issued 

source-specific orders containing 

control requirements for the facilities 

listed in Table RACT–2 of the state’s 

submittal, and all of these have been 

previously approved into the 

Massachusetts SIP. 

The Commonwealth’s submittal notes 

that no sources exist in the state for 

some CTG categories. Specifically, Table 

RACT–1 of Massachusetts’ submittal 

makes negative declarations for the 

following CTG sectors: 

1. Refinery Vacuum Producing 

Systems, Wastewater Separators, and 

Process Unit Turnarounds; 

2. Leaks from Petroleum Refinery 

Equipment; 

3. Manufacture of Synthetic 

Pharmaceutical Products; 

4. Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber 

Tires; 

5. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; 

6. Manufacture of High-Density 

Polyethylene, Polypropylene and 

Polystyrene Resins; 

7. Natural Gas/Gasoline Process 

Leaks; 

8. Synthetic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing Air Oxidation Processes; 

and 

9. Ship Building and Repair. 

Massachusetts’ review of its control 

program for sources of VOC concludes 

that, with the adoption of revised rules 

for solvent cleaning, Stage II vehicle 

refueling, and cutback asphalt, all 

required VOC sources in the state are 

subject to RACT. 

As required, the Commonwealth’s 

submittal addresses NOX emissions as 

well as VOC emissions. In their 

submittal, the Commonwealth explains 

that in order to address the 1990 CAA 

NOX RACT requirement, Massachusetts 

adopted 310 CMR 7.19, ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

for Sources of Oxides of Nitrogen 

(NOX).’’ This rule established NOX

RACT for large, medium and small 

boilers; stationary combustion turbines; 

stationary reciprocating internal 

combustion engines; and glass melting 

furnaces. In addition, they describe that 

310 CMR 7.19(12) provided for single 

source NOX RACT determinations for 

major ‘‘miscellaneous’’ NOX sources 

with a potential to emit 50 tons or more 

per year of NOX. Massachusetts explains 

that they have reviewed 310 CMR 7.19 

and, in general, have determined that 

the NOX controls required by 310 CMR 

7.19 continue to constitute NOX RACT 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

for each of the source categories covered 

by that rule, as well as for major sources 

of NOX for which single-source RACT 

determinations were made pursuant to 

310 CMR 7.19(12). Additionally, the 

Commonwealth certifies in Tables 

RACT–1 and RACT–2 that current 

Massachusetts NOX RACT constitutes 8- 

hour NOX RACT under the 1997 ozone 

standard for the NOX categories listed 

and for the facilities for which singlesource RACT determinations were 

made. 

Within their submittal, the 

Commonwealth notes that certain NOX

emitting sectors are controlled by 

additional sections of Massachusetts’ air 

pollution control regulations. First, 

Massachusetts notes that electric 

generation units (EGUs) and large 

industrial boilers, in addition to 

requirements contained within 310 

CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR 

7.28, ‘‘NOX Allowance Trading 

Program,’’ and 310 CMR 7.32, 

‘‘Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (Mass CAIR).’’ In addition, 

Massachusetts notes that a subset of the 

largest fossil fuel-fired EGUs in 

Massachusetts are also subject to NOX

emission limitations under 310 CMR 

7.29, ‘‘Emissions Standards for Power 

Plants,’’ adopted in 2001. Lastly, the 

Commonwealth notes that municipal 

waste combustors, in addition to 

requirements contained within 310 

CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR 

7.08, ‘‘Incinerators.’’ 

Massachusetts’ review of its control 

program for major sources of VOC and 

NOX thus concludes that, with the 

adoption of revised rules for solvent 

cleaning, Stage II vehicle refueling, and 

cutback asphalt, all major sources in the 

state are subject to RACT under the 

1997 ozone standard. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation of Massachusetts’ 

SIP Revisions 

EPA has reviewed Massachusetts’ 

determination that it has adopted VOC 

and NOX control regulations for 

stationary sources that constitute RACT, 

and determined that the set of 

regulations cited by the Commonwealth 

constitute RACT for purposes of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

Additionally, we are proposing to 

approve updates to two VOC RACT 

regulations submitted by Massachusetts 

on June 1, 2010. 

a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements 

Massachusetts’ submittal documents 

the set of VOC control regulations that 

have been adopted to ensure that RACT 

level controls are required in the state. 

These requirements include: 310 CMR 

7.18, ‘‘Volatile and Halogenated Organic 

Compounds;’’ and 310 CMR 7.24, 

‘‘Organic Material Storage and 

Distribution.’’ Table RACT–1 of the 

Commonwealth’s submittal indicates 

that Massachusetts has either adopted a 

regulation that has been incorporated 

into the SIP to address EPA’s pre-2006 

CTGs, or submitted a negative 

declaration in instances where no 

facilities exist in the state for certain 

CTGs identified in the submittal. 

Massachusetts’ review of these VOC 

RACT regulations revealed that several 

could be strengthened in order to 

continue to meet RACT, and we address 

the disposition of those updates further 

below. 

Additionally, Massachusetts has 

adopted numerous single source RACT 

orders for major sources of VOC that are 

not covered by one of EPA’s CTGs, and 

these orders have been submitted to 

EPA and incorporated into the SIP. 

They are identified within the 

Commonwealth’s submittal in Table 

RACT–2. Also, as noted above, 

Massachusetts adopted, and we are 

proposing to approve into the 

Massachusetts SIP, updates to two 

existing VOC RACT rules, namely the 

state’s existing solvent metal cleaning 

and Stage II motor vehicle refueling 

regulations. 

The Commonwealth’s submittal 

documents a substantial downward 

trend in VOC emissions from stationary 

sources, a portion of which is 

attributable to RACT controls 

implemented by Massachusetts. Data 

collected by Massachusetts from its 

annual survey of industrial point source 

emitters reveals that between 1996 and 

2002, VOC emissions from industrial 

point sources declined by 63%. This 

decline in emissions was brought about, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10586 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3See ‘‘Background Information and Technical 

Support Document for Proposed Amendments To 

310 CMR 7.00 et seq., 310 CMR 7.18, Volatile and 

Halogenated Organic Compounds, Solvent Metal 

Degreasing,’’ Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection, October 17, 2008, 

available in the docket for this rulemaking. 

4See ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from 

Solvent Metal Cleaning,’’ EPA–450/2–77–022; 

1977/11. 

5Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires Stage II 

controls at gasoline dispensing facilities which 

dispense 10,000 gallons or more per month or 

50,000 gallons per month in the case of 

independent small business marketers. 

in part, by the RACT program 

implemented by Massachusetts. 

We are proposing approval of updates 

to the following two VOC RACT 

regulations described below, which 

Massachusetts has strengthened such 

that they continue to represent RACT 

under the 1997 ozone standard. 

Although Massachusetts’s RACT 

certification submittal indicates that 

three existing VOC rules were to be 

updated in such fashion, only two were 

updated. Massachusetts updated its 

existing rules limiting emissions from 

solvent cleaning (metal degreasing) and 

emissions from storage tanks at gasoline 

service stations, but did not update its 

existing cutback asphalt regulation. 

These three regulations are discussed 

individually, as follows. 

Solvent Degreasing Rule 

Massachusetts updated its previously 

SIP-approved (58 FR 34911) solvent 

cleaning rule primarily to include a new 

requirement limiting the vapor pressure 

for cold cleaning solvents, as 

recommended within the Ozone 

Transport Commission’s (OTC’s) 2001 

model rule for this activity. The 

requirement applies to cold cleaning 

degreasers that hold more than one liter 

of solvent. The Commonwealth’s 

proposed revision includes exemptions 

for cold cleaning degreasers used in 

special and extreme metal cleaning, for 

devices located in a permanent total 

enclosure with an overall VOC control 

efficiency of at least 90 percent, and for 

facilities that receive an approval from 

the Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) to use a non-compliant 

solvent due to unsafe operating 

conditions. We note that with the new 

vapor pressure limit, the revised rule is 

more stringent than the previously SIPapproved version of the rule. In 

particular, Massachusetts estimated that 

the revised rule would reduce VOC 

emissions by 7 tons per summer day in 

2009 compared to the previously 

regulated levels.3 Therefore, the revised 

rule meets the requirements of section 

193 of the CAA, which provides that 

‘‘[n]o control requirement in effect 

* * * before November 15, 1990, in any 

area which is a nonattainment area for 

any air pollutant may be modified after 

November 15, 1990, in any manner 

unless the modification insures 

equivalent or greater emission 

reductions of such air pollutant.’’ For 

similar reasons, the revisions meets the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

CAA, which prohibits EPA from 

approving a SIP revision ‘‘if the revision 

would interfere with any applicable 

requirement concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress * * * or any 

other applicable requirement of [the 

Clean Air Act].’’ Additionally, we note 

that the limited number of exemptions 

from the new vapor pressure 

requirement is acceptable given that this 

requirement is above and beyond the 

RACT recommendation within the 

EPA’s CTG 4 for this source category. 

Stage II Rule 

The Commonwealth updated its 

previously adopted, SIP-approved (65 

FR 78974) Stage II Vapor Recovery 

regulation, 310 CMR 7.24(6), primarily 

to require the use of PV vent caps on 

vapor balance systems installed on 

underground gasoline storage tanks to 

further reduce evaporative emissions 

from vehicle refueling. A number of 

additional updates were also made to 

the rule, including the following items. 

The Commonwealth revised 

definitions for the terms ‘‘isolate,’’ 

‘‘minor modification,’’ ‘‘routine 

maintenance,’’ and ‘‘substantial 

modification,’’ and also proposed new 

language clarifying requirements that 

ensure timely repair of Stage II systems. 

Massachusetts incorporated 

requirements that compel compliance 

testing companies to notify the DEP of 

any facilities that fail a compliance test, 

and also revised existing requirements 

for compliance testing companies. 

Experience gained from operation of 

the Stage II program revealed that the 

compliance benefit attributed to the 120 

day in-use compliance testing and 

certification requirement for vacuum 

assist systems could be achieved by the 

weekly visual and annual compliance 

testing requirement, and so the 

Commonwealth eliminated the 120 day 

in-use compliance testing requirement. 

Additionally, Massachusetts’ revisions 

include an allowance for a facility to 

commence operation immediately upon 

passing applicable testing requirements. 

When Massachusetts initially adopted 

its Stage II rule in 1989, it adopted a 

more stringent applicability level than 

subsequently required by the CAA 

amendments of 1990 5 that resulted in 

essentially all dispensing of gasoline to 

be subject to the regulation. Because of 

this, very small levels of gasoline 

dispensing activity such as that which 

occurs at salvage yards was covered by 

the regulation. Therefore, the 

Commonwealth’s revised rule exempts 

motor vehicle salvage yards that 

dispense recovered fuel on-site to 

employee vehicles. By including this 

exemption, Massachusetts believes that 

the air quality protections afforded by 

the rule will not be adversely affected. 

Given the minimal amount of gasoline 

that will receive this exemption in 

comparison to the statewide use of 

motor vehicle fuel, we agree with the 

Commonwealth’s conclusion. 

The Commonwealth’s revisions to the 

Stage II regulation include several 

provisions relating to requirements put 

in place by the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB). These include an 

allowance for the installation of CARB 

approved above ground storage tanks, 

references to CARB Stage II approval 

letters, and an update to the list of 

CARB approved Stage II systems to 

incorporate recently adopted CARB 

Executive Orders. 

Massachusetts also made a number of 

minor revisions to existing 

recordkeeping and testing requirements 

applicable to Stage II system operators. 

We note that, with the addition of the 

new PV vent valve requirements, the 

revised rule is more stringent than the 

previously SIP-approved rule, even after 

accounting for the new exemption for 

motor vehicle salvage yards that 

dispense recovered fuel on-site to 

employee vehicles. Therefore, the 

revision meets the requirements of 

section 110(l) of the CAA. 

The Commonwealth submitted its 

updated Stage II vapor recovery and 

solvent cleaning rules to EPA on June 1, 

2010, and we are proposing approval of 

them within this action. 

Cutback Asphalt Rule 

The Commonwealth’s January 31, 

2008 submittal indicated that updates 

were also intended for 310 CMR 7.18(9), 

the existing cutback asphalt paving rule. 

However, on January 18, 2013, 

Massachusetts submitted a letter 

withdrawing portions of the January 31, 

2008 submittal, including the 

commitment to revise the cutback 

asphalt rule. The Commonwealth noted 

in its January 18, 2013 withdrawal letter 

that on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31496), 

EPA issued a final determination that 

Eastern Massachusetts had attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, and on 

June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36404) issued a 

similar determination for the Western 

Massachusetts nonattainment area. 

Therefore, the Commonwealth indicated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10587 

6See Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 70 FR 

71617. 

7See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 

2009). 

8See Earthjustice Petition for Reconsideration of 

the Clean Air Fine Particle Rule, June 25, 2007. See 

also April 25, 2011 letter from Lisa P. Jackson to 

Paul Cort, Earthjustice, responding to the June 25, 

2007 petition for reconsideration. 

that it now believes that its existing SIPapproved (58 FR 3495) cutback asphalt 

regulation continues to represent RACT. 

Given the circumstances cited above, we 

concur with this conclusion. 

b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements 

Massachusetts’ submittal documents 

the set of NOX control regulations that 

have been adopted to ensure that RACT 

level controls are required in the state. 

These requirements include the 

following sections of title 310 of the 

Code of Massachusetts Regulations: 

7.08, ‘‘Incinerators;’’ 

7.19, ‘‘Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) for Sources of 

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);’’ 

7.28, ‘‘NOX Allowance Trading 

Program;’’ 

7.29, ‘‘Emission Standards for Power 

Plants;’’ and, 

7.32, ‘‘Massachusetts Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).’’ 

Table RACT–1 of the 

Commonwealth’s submittal indicates 

the regulation that the Commonwealth 

has adopted, where appropriate, to 

address EPA’s ACTs for NOX source 

categories. We note that we have not 

updated any of the ACT documents 

noted within Table RACT–1. 

Massachusetts’ submittal addresses NOX

RACT for all major sources in the 

Commonwealth. For the following 

sectors for which EPA has published 

ACT guidelines, Massachusetts’s 

submittal indicates that there are no 

major sources of NOX within the 

Commonwealth: nitric and adipic acid 

plants; cement plants; and iron and steel 

manufacturing facilities. Major NOX

sources do exist in Massachusetts for 

the ACT categories noted within Table 

RACT–1, and this Table identifies the 

NOX RACT regulations the 

Commonwealth has adopted to address 

them. These ACT categories include 

combustion turbines, process heaters, 

internal combustion engines, industrialcommercial-institutional boilers, and 

glass manufacturing facilities. 

Massachusetts’ RACT submittal certifies 

that these regulations represent RACT 

for purposes of EPA’s 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard. Additionally, 

Massachusetts has adopted three single 

source RACT orders for major sources of 

NOX that are not covered by one of 

EPA’s ACTs, and these orders, 

identified in Table RACT–2, have been 

submitted to EPA and incorporated into 

the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.1167. Table 

RACT–1 also lists regulations adopted 

by the Commonwealth to further control 

NOX emissions from electric utility 

boilers and municipal waste combustors 

(MWCs), and we discuss these two 

sectors separately below. 

Municipal Waste Combustors 

MWCs represent one of the largest 

NOX emitting sectors in the 

Commonwealth, and EPA previously 

approved RACT requirements for these 

units within 310 CMR 7.19(9), which 

became effective in 1995. See 64 FR 

48095. More recently, in 2000, the 

Commonwealth tightened emission 

limits for eleven of the seventeen MWC 

units in the Commonwealth via a 

strengthening of 310 CMR 7.08(2), 

Incinerators. Massachusetts submitted 

the updated rule to us, and we approved 

it as part of the Commonwealth’s plan 

for controlling MWC emissions from 

existing large MWC plants under 

Section 111(d) of the CAA on October 

9, 2002 (67 FR 62894). Massachusetts 

noted that the update to section 7.08(2) 

established emission limits that were 

equivalent to those within 40 CFR 60 

Subpart Cb, which refers to EPA’s 

emission guideline entitled, ‘‘Emissions 

Guidelines and Compliance Times for 

Large Municipal Waste Combustors that 

are Constructed on or Before September 

20, 1994.’’ The Commonwealth’s RACT 

certification further noted that one unit 

in Massachusetts is subject to the New 

Source Performance Standard located at 

40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb. In light of the 

above, we find that the controls on 12 

of the 17 units as specified above, in 

addition to the initial baseline adoption 

of RACT for MWCs in 1995 pursuant to 

CMR 7.19(9), demonstrates that the 

Commonwealth has required an overall 

RACT level of control for these units. 

Electric Utility Boilers 

EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone Implementation 

Rule mentioned above addressed 

various statutory requirements, 

including the requirement for RACT 

level controls for sources located within 

nonattainment areas generally, and 

controls for NOX emissions from EGUs 

in particular. EPA indicated its 

determination that the regional NOX

emissions reductions that result from 

either the NOX SIP Call or the CAIR 

would meet the NOX RACT requirement 

for EGUs located in states included 

within the respective NOX SIP Call or 

the CAIR geographic regions. Thus, EPA 

concluded that: ‘‘[t]he State need not 

perform a NOX RACT analysis for 

sources subject to the State’s emission 

cap-and-trade program where the capand-trade program has been adopted by 

the State and approved by EPA as 

meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements 

or, in States achieving the CAIR 

reductions solely from electric 

generating units (EGUs), the CAIR NOX

requirements.’’ 6 Based in part on this 

existing EPA rule at that time, the 

Commonwealth certified that the NOX

sources regulated by its NOX SIP Call 

and CAIR rules meet the 8-hour ozone 

RACT requirements for purposes of the 

1997 ozone standard. 

However, in November 2008, several 

parties challenged EPA’s Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule. In particular, they 

challenged EPA’s determination that 

compliance with the NOX SIP Call and/ 

or the CAIR could satisfy NOX RACT 

requirements for EGUs in nonattainment 

areas and EPA’s determination that 

compliance with the CAIR could satisfy 

NOX RACT for EGUs in ozone 

nonattainment areas. As a result of this 

litigation, the Court decided that the 

provisions in the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule indicating that a 

state need not perform (or submit) a 

NOX RACT analysis for EGU sources 

subject to a cap-and-trade program that 

meets the requirements of the NOX SIP 

Call are inconsistent with the statutory 

requirements of section 172(c)(1).7 The 

Court specifically held that the Phase 2 

Ozone Implementation Rule allowing 

use of the NOX SIP call to constitute 

RACT without any locally applicable 

analysis regarding the equivalence of 

NOX SIP Call and RACT reductions: ‘‘is 

inconsistent with the Clean Air Act 

* * * in allowing participation in a 

regional cap-and-trade program to 

satisfy an area-specific statutory 

mandate.’’ The Court emphasized that: 

‘‘the RACT requirement calls for 

reductions in emissions from sources in 

the area; reductions from sources 

outside the nonattainment area do not 

satisfy the requirement * * * 

Accordingly, participation in the NOX

SIP call would constitute RACT only if 

participation entailed at least RACTlevel reductions in emissions from 

sources within the nonattainment area.’’ 

In view of its decision in North Carolina 

v. EPA, in which the Court had 

previously remanded the CAIR, the 

court deferred consideration of the 

litigant’s challenge to the Phase 2 Ozone 

Implementation Rule insofar as they 

related to the CAIR program. In light of 

the above, as well as a 2007 petition for 

reconsideration that EPA granted on this 

issue as it pertains to CAIR,8 we do not 

consider the NOX SIP call or CAIR to 

equal NOX RACT. Rather, consistent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

10588 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9RACT requirements for Unit 7 are located at 310 

CMR 7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(i), which requires a NOX

emission limit of 0.25 lbs/mmBtu when burning oil, 

and pursuant to 310 CMR 7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(ii) which 

requires a NOX emission limit of 0.20 lbs/mmBtu 

when burning gas. Between 2010 and 2012, the unit 

was well within these limits, emitting NOX within 

a range of 0.06 to 0.08 lbs/mmBtu. 

with the above ruling, we have prepared 

a locally applicable analysis of whether 

electric utility boilers in the 

Commonwealth are subject to a RACT 

level of controls. 

Electric utility boilers are subject to 

the Commonwealth’s initial NOX RACT 

regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, which was 

adopted in the mid-1990s. We 

previously determined that the emission 

limits within 310 CMR 7.19 required a 

RACT level of control on these units for 

purposes of our 1-hour ozone standard. 

See 64 FR 48095. Massachusetts 

subsequently acted to further reduce 

NOX emissions from these units by 

participation in several NOX budget 

trading programs, and also by enactment 

of 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission Standards 

for Power Plants.’’ 

Regarding NOX budget trading 

programs, between 1999 and 2002, 

Massachusetts participated in the OTC’s 

NOX Budget Program. Massachusetts 

implemented this program by adopting 

310 CMR 7.27, ‘‘NOX Allowance 

Program,’’ and submitted this regulation 

to EPA which we incorporated into the 

Massachusetts SIP on December 27, 

2000 (65 FR 81743). In 2003, the sources 

covered by the NOX Allowance Program 

were transitioned to the Federal NOX

budget program (also referred to as the 

‘‘NOX SIP call’’) which Massachusetts 

implemented by adopting 310 CMR 

7.28, ‘‘NOX Allowance Trading 

Program.’’ Massachusetts submitted this 

regulation to EPA, and we approved it 

into the Massachusetts SIP on December 

3, 2007 (72 FR 67854). The Federal NOX

budget program achieved significant 

additional NOX reductions within 

Massachusetts from the sources subject 

to its requirements. In particular, 

emissions from units within 

Massachusetts subject to the Federal 

NOX budget program reduced ozone 

season NOX emissions from 9,265 tons 

in 2003 to 3,232 tons by 2008, 

representing a 65% reduction in 

emissions. Massachusetts then acted to 

further reduce NOX emissions from 

these units by adopting 310 CMR 7.32, 

‘‘Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (Mass CAIR).’’ Massachusetts 

submitted this program to EPA, and we 

approved it into the SIP on December 3, 

2007 (72 FR 67854). By 2011, ozone 

season NOX emissions from units within 

the Commonwealth subject to the CAIR 

rule decreased by an additional 46%, 

falling from 3,232 tons in 2008 to 1,760 

tons in 2011. The substantial decrease 

in NOX emissions from sources in the 

Commonwealth subject to the Federal 

NOX budget and CAIR programs was 

brought about, in part, by the 

installation of various types of NOX

emission control equipment of the 

variety listed in Table 1, below. 

Although the CAIR program was subject 

to a number of court challenges, a recent 

decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia issued on 

August 21, 2012 which vacated the 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

provided that until the CSAPR litigation 

is resolved, the CAIR program remains 

in effect. (EME Homer City Generation, 

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

2012)). 

Regarding 310 CMR 7.29, ‘‘Emission 

Standards for Power Plants,’’ the 

Commonwealth adopted this regulation 

in 2001, and submitted it to EPA for 

incorporation into the SIP within a 

submittal made on December 30, 2011, 

to address regional haze requirements. 

We approved the state’s submittal, 

including 310 CMR 7.29, within a final 

rulemaking signed by the Regional 

Administrator on September 12, 2012 

and forwarded for publication in the 

Federal Register. A copy of the signed 

approval of the Commonwealth’s 

regional haze SIP is available in the 

docket for this action. This rule covers 

the largest fossil fuel-fired EGUs in 

Massachusetts and required individual 

emissions units to install additional 

add-on controls to comply with outputbased NOX emission limits between 

2000 and 2008. As of 2009, six operating 

facilities were subject to this regulation 

containing 13 EGUs. Annual NOX

emissions for these six facilities 

dropped from 30,352 tons in 2000 to 

7,009 tons in 2009, a drop of 77%. The 

NOX controls installed on each unit at 

these facilities, as listed in their Title V 

Operating Permit, is contained in Table 

1, below. Within Table 1, the following 

abbreviations are used: LNB for low NO 

burners; OFA for over-fire air; FGR for 

flue gas recirculation; SCR for selective 

catalytic reduction; and SNCR for 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

TABLE 1—NOX CONTROLS AT FACILITIES GOVERNED BY 310 CMR 7.29 

Facility Unit NOX controls installed Operating status 

Brayton Point .................................................................... 1 LNB, OFA, SCR ............................................................... Operating. 

Brayton Point .................................................................... 2 LNB, OFA ......................................................................... Operating. 

Brayton Point .................................................................... 3 LNB, OFA, SCR ............................................................... Operating. 

Brayton Point .................................................................... 4 LNB .................................................................................. Operating. 

Canal Station .................................................................... 1 LNB, OFA, FGR, SCR ..................................................... Operating. 

Canal Station .................................................................... 2 LNB, OFA, FGR, combustion tuning, SNCR ................... Operating. 

Mount Tom ....................................................................... 1 LNB, OFA, SCR ............................................................... Operating. 

Mystic ............................................................................... 7 None 9 ............................................................................... Operating. 

Salem Harbor ................................................................... 1 LNB, SNCR ...................................................................... Retired 1/15/12. 

Salem Harbor ................................................................... 2 SNCR ............................................................................... Retired 1/15/12. 

Salem Harbor ................................................................... 3 LNB, OFA, SNCR ............................................................ Operating. 

Salem Harbor ................................................................... 4 LNB .................................................................................. Operating. 

Somerset .......................................................................... 8 OFA, Natural Gas Reburn System, SNCR ...................... Retired 1/2/10. 

As previously mentioned, 

Massachusetts adopted a set of 

regulations to address NOX RACT for 

the 1-hour ozone standard, and we 

approved those requirements into the 

Commonwealth’s SIP. Since then, 

Massachusetts has acted to further 

reduce NOX emissions from the two 

largest NOX emitting sectors in the state, 

namely municipal waste combustors 

and electric utility boilers. In light of the 

above regulatory actions and NOX

control equipment installations and the 

resulting decrease in NOX emissions 

within Massachusetts, in addition to the 

initial baseline adoption of RACT in 

CMR 7.19, EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ January 31, 2008 SIP 

certification that the state has adopted 

air pollution control strategies that 

represent NOX RACT for purposes of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 / Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Proposed Rules 10589 

compliance with our 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Our decision is also based, in 

part, on the fact that both nonattainment 

areas within the Commonwealth have 

attained our 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

by their attainment date of June 15, 2010 

as noted in Section IV, Proposed Action. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing approval of 

Massachusetts’ January 31, 2008 SIP 

submittal that demonstrates that the 

state has adopted air pollution control 

strategies that represent RACT for 

purposes of compliance with the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we 

are proposing approval of two revised 

regulations submitted by Massachusetts 

on June 1, 2010: 310 CMR 7.18(8), 

‘‘Solvent Metal Degreasing;’’ and 310 

CMR 7.24(6), ‘‘Dispensing of Motor 

Vehicle Fuel.’’ 

EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX

stationary source control regulations 

which Massachusetts contends meets 

RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, and determined that a level of 

control consistent with RACT has been 

implemented in the state for purposes of 

the 1997 ozone standard. We do not 

anticipate any difficulties with 

enforcing the state’s standards, as EPA 

has previously approved the rules 

Massachusetts cites as the means by 

which RACT is implemented. We have 

determined that these regulatory 

elements and the resulting reduction in 

VOC and NOX emissions from major 

sources demonstrate that a RACT level 

of control for both pollutants has been 

implemented in the state. EPA has 

previously determined that 

Massachusetts’ two 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment areas attained the 1997 

ozone standard by their attainment date, 

based on quality-assured air monitoring 

data. This determination was published 

on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31496) for the 

Eastern Massachusetts nonattainment 

area, and on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 

36404) for the Western Massachusetts 

nonattainment area. The improvements 

in air quality represented by these clean 

data determinations were brought about, 

in part, by the RACT program 

implemented by Massachusetts. 

EPA is soliciting public comments on 

the issues discussed in this notice or on 

other relevant matters. These comments 

will be considered before taking final 

action. Interested parties may 

participate in the Federal rulemaking 

procedure by submitting written 

comments to the EPA New England 

Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES

section of this Federal Register. 

V. 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 approves 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, 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. 

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. 

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

Dated: February 5, 2013. 

Ira W. Leighton, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

1. 

[FR Doc. 2013–03472 Filed 2–13–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2013–0064; FRL–9777–7] 

Revision of Air Quality Implementation 

Plan; California; Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District; Stationary Source Permits 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to fully 

approve two permitting rules submitted 

by California as a revision to the 

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 

Management District (SMAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These rules 

were adopted by the SMAQMD to 

regulate the construction and 

modification of stationary sources of air 

pollution within Sacramento County. 

EPA is proposing to approve this SIP 

revision based on the Agency’s 

conclusion that the rules are consistent 

with applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements, policies and guidance. 

Final approval of these rules would 

make the rules federally enforceable and 

correct program deficiencies identified 

in a previous EPA rulemaking on July 

20, 2011. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2013–0064, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: R9airpermits@epa.gov. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS