65672 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

include rule amendments related to 

control measures for volatile organic 

compounds from gasoline dispensing 

facilities in the Portland-Vancouver, 

Medford-Ashland, and Salem-Keizer 

Area Transportation Study air quality 

management areas, as well as all of 

Clackamas, Multnomah, and 

Washington counties. The EPA received 

the SIP submittals from the ODEQ on 

February 5, 2009, November 1, 2010, 

May 25, 2011, and April 20, 2015, and 

the supplementary letter on September 

18, 2015. The EPA is proposing to 

approve the SIP submittals because they 

are consistent with the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2011–0799, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: vaupel.claudia@epa.gov. 

• Mail: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, 

U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT–150, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. EPA 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 

900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: 

Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, AWT–150. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Claudia Vergnani Vaupel at (206) 553– 

6121, vaupel.claudia@epa.gov, or the 

above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

further information, please see the 

direct final action, of the same title, 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. The EPA is 

approving the State’s SIP revisions as a 

direct final rule without prior proposal 

because the EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial SIP action and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the preamble to the direct final 

rule. If the EPA receives no adverse 

comments, the EPA will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. 

If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, the EPA will withdraw the 

direct final rule and it will not take 

effect. The EPA will address all public 

comments in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. The EPA 

will not institute a second comment 

period on this action. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if we receive adverse comment on 

an amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

the EPA may adopt as final those 

provisions of the rule that are not the 

subject of an adverse comment. 

Dated: September 25, 2015. 

Michelle Pirzadeh, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27169 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0334; FRL–9936–17– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Washington: 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On May 11, 2015, the State 

of Washington made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is proposing to approve the submittal as 

meeting the requirement that each SIP 

contain adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 27, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R10– 

OAR–2015–0334, by any of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: R10-Public_Comments@ 

epa.gov. 

• Mail: Jeff Hunt, EPA Region 10, 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT– 

150), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, 

Seattle, WA 98101. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Region 

10 9th Floor Mailroom, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101. 

Attention: Jeff Hunt, Office of Air, Waste 

and Toxics, AWT–150. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015– 

0334. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at 

http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided, 

unless the comment includes 

information claimed to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the 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 the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. If you submit 

an electronic comment, the 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 the EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, the EPA may not 

be able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information the disclosure of which 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. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65673 

1NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998); 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 

12, 2005); Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

2 76 FR 48208. 

3CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and 

the 1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter NAAQS. 

4CSAPR proposal, 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 

2, 2010). 

5See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule 

Technical Support Document, Appendix F; 

Analysis of Contribution Thresholds. 

6CSAPR, 76 FR 48208, 48236–37 (August 8, 

2011). 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9 Id. 

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

WA 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Hunt at (206) 553–0256, 

hunt.jeff@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

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

intended to refer to the EPA. 

Information is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. State Submittal 

III. EPA Evaluation 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised 

the levels of the primary and secondary 

8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 

16436). The CAA requires states to 

submit, within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

standard, SIPs meeting the applicable 

‘‘infrastructure’’ elements of sections 

110(a)(1) and (2). One of these 

applicable infrastructure elements, CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to 

contain ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions to 

prohibit certain adverse air quality 

effects on neighboring states due to 

interstate transport of pollution. There 

are four sub-elements within CAA 

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

addresses the first two sub-elements of 

the good neighbor provisions, at CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These subelements require that each SIP for a new 

or revised standard contain adequate 

provisions to prohibit any source or 

other type of emissions activity within 

the state from emitting air pollutants 

that will ‘‘contribute significantly to 

nonattainment’’ or ‘‘interfere with 

maintenance’’ of the applicable air 

quality standard in any other state. We 

note that the EPA has addressed the 

interstate transport requirements of 

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

eastern portion of the United States in 

several past regulatory actions.1 We 

most recently promulgated the CrossState Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 

which addressed CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion 

of the United States.2 CSAPR addressed 

multiple national ambient air quality 

standards, but did not address the 2008 

8-hour ozone standard.3

In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air 

quality analyses to determine whether 

an eastern state’s contribution to 

downwind air quality problems was at 

or above specific thresholds. If a state’s 

contribution did not exceed the 

specified air quality screening 

threshold, the state was not considered 

‘‘linked’’ to identified downwind 

nonattainment and maintenance 

receptors and was therefore not 

considered to significantly contribute to 

or interfere with maintenance of the 

standard in those downwind areas. If a 

state exceeded that threshold, the state’s 

emissions were further evaluated, taking 

into account both air quality and cost 

considerations, to determine what, if 

any, emissions reductions might be 

necessary. For the reasons stated below, 

we believe it is appropriate to use the 

same approach we used in CSAPR to 

establish an air quality screening 

threshold for the evaluation of interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone standard. 

In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air 

quality screening threshold of one 

percent of the applicable NAAQS and 

requested comment on whether one 

percent was appropriate.4 The EPA 

evaluated the comments received and 

ultimately determined that one percent 

was an appropriately low threshold 

because there were important, even if 

relatively small, contributions to 

identified nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors from multiple 

upwind states. In response to 

commenters who advocated a higher or 

lower threshold than one percent, the 

EPA compiled the contribution 

modeling results for CSAPR to analyze 

the impact of different possible 

thresholds for the eastern United States. 

The EPA’s analysis showed that the onepercent threshold captures a high 

percentage of the total pollution 

transport affecting downwind states, 

while the use of higher thresholds 

would exclude increasingly larger 

percentages of total transport. For 

example, at a five percent threshold, the 

majority of interstate pollution transport 

affecting downwind receptors would be 

excluded.5 In addition, the EPA 

determined that it was important to use 

a relatively lower one-percent threshold 

because there are adverse health 

impacts associated with ambient ozone 

even at low levels.6 The EPA also 

determined that a lower threshold such 

as 0.5 percent would result in modest 

increases in the overall percentages of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution transport captured relative to 

the amounts captured at the one-percent 

level. The EPA determined that a ‘‘0.5 

percent threshold could lead to 

emission reduction responsibilities in 

additional states that individually have 

a very small impact on those receptors— 

an indicator that emission controls in 

those states are likely to have a smaller 

air quality impact at the downwind 

receptor. We are not convinced that 

selecting a threshold below one percent 

is necessary or desirable.’’ 7

In the final CSAPR, the EPA 

determined that one percent was a 

reasonable choice considering the 

combined downwind impact of multiple 

upwind states in the eastern United 

States, the health effects of low levels of 

fine particulate matter and ozone 

pollution, and the EPA’s previous use of 

a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The 

EPA used a single ‘‘bright line’’ air 

quality threshold equal to one percent of 

the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 

ppm.8 The projected contribution from 

each state was averaged over multiple 

days with projected high modeled 

ozone, and then compared to the onepercent threshold. We concluded that 

this approach for setting and applying 

the air quality threshold for ozone was 

appropriate because it provided a robust 

metric, was consistent with the 

approach for fine particulate matter 

used in CSAPR, and because it took into 

account, and would be applicable to, 

any future ozone standards below 0.08 

ppm.9

II. State Submittal 

CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) and 

section 110(l) require that revisions to a 

SIP be adopted by the State after 

reasonable notice and public hearing. 

The EPA has promulgated specific 

procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions in 40 CFR part 51, subpart F. 

These requirements include publication 

of notices by prominent advertisement 

in the relevant geographic area, a public 

comment period of at least 30 days, and 

an opportunity for a public hearing. 

On May 11, 2015, Washington 

submitted a SIP to address the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. The Washington submittal 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
65674 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

10See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page 

entitled ‘‘Information of the Interstate Transport 

‘Good Neighbor’ Provision for the 2008 Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 

under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),’’ January 22, 2015, available at: 

http://www3.epa.gov/airtransport/ 

GoodNeighborProvision2008NAAQS.pdf. 

11See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of 

Availability of the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data 

for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS)). 12 80 FR 46271 at page 46277, Table 3. 

included documentation of a public 

comment period from March 9, 2015 

through April 10, 2015, and opportunity 

for public hearing. We find that the 

process followed by Washington in 

adopting the submittal complies with 

the procedural requirements for SIP 

revisions under CAA section 110 and 

the EPA’s implementing regulations. 

With respect to the requirements in 

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

Washington submittal referred to 

applicable rules in the Washington SIP, 

2011 National Emissions Inventory 

(NEI) data, and modeling conducted by 

the State using the Motor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator (MOVES2014, 

database version 20141021). 

Washington noted that efforts by the 

EPA and states to address ozone 

transport have historically been focused 

on reductions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

a precursor to ozone formation, and 

provided 2011 NEI data for the major 

NOX emissions categories in the State. 

Washington found that on-road mobile 

sources comprise 57 percent of total 

NOX emissions, non-road mobile 

sources represent 11 percent, and the 

third largest group, point sources, 

comprises 9 percent of all Washington 

NOX emissions in 2011. Washington 

then performed MOVES2014 modeling 

to look specifically at past and future 

trends in on-road and non-road mobile 

sources, the two largest source 

categories in Washington, for the years 

2000 through 2020. The MOVES2014 

modeling showed sustained, continuous 

reductions in NOX emissions from 

approximately 800 tons per day in 2000 

to approximately 250 tons per day 

projected in 2020. Based on this 

evidence, and the EPA’s draft 

photochemical air quality modeling data 

available at the time of Washington’s 

submission, the State concluded that 

emissions of ozone precursors from 

Washington sources will not 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

in any other state.10

The Washington submittal provided 

further information to support this 

conclusion by citing the stationary 

source permitting regulations approved 

into the Washington SIP that require 

new sources and modifications to 

protect the ambient air quality 

standards, including the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS. With respect to new or 

modified major stationary sources, the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting program in the 

Washington SIP requires an owner or 

operator to demonstrate that the source 

will not contribute significantly to 

nonattainment or interfere with 

maintenance in another state. 

III. EPA Evaluation 

On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a 

Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

containing air quality modeling data 

that applies the CSAPR approach to 

contribution projections for the year 

2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.11 The moderate area 

attainment date for the 2008 ozone 

standard is July 11, 2018. In order to 

demonstrate attainment by this 

attainment deadline, states will use 

2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. 

Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future 

year to model for the purpose of 

examining interstate transport for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA used 

photochemical air quality modeling to 

project ozone concentrations at air 

quality monitoring sites to 2017 and 

estimated state-by-state ozone 

contributions to those 2017 

concentrations. This modeling used the 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model with 

Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to 

model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 

future base case emissions scenarios to 

identify projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites with respect to the 

2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. The EPA 

used nationwide state-level ozone 

source apportionment modeling (CAMx 

Ozone Source Apportionment 

Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor 

Culpability Analysis technique) to 

quantify the contribution of 2017 base 

case NOX and VOC emissions from all 

sources in each state to the 2017 

projected receptors. The air quality 

model runs were performed for a 

modeling domain that covers the 48 

contiguous United States and adjacent 

portions of Canada and Mexico. The 

NODA and the supporting technical 

documents have been included in the 

docket for this action. 

The modeling data released in the 

NODA on July 23, 2015, is the most upto-date information the EPA has 

developed to inform our analysis of 

upwind state linkages to downwind air 

quality problems. For purposes of 

evaluating Washington’s interstate 

transport SIP submittal with respect to 

the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the 

EPA is proposing that states whose 

contributions are less than one percent 

to downwind nonattainment and 

maintenance receptors are considered 

non-significant. The modeling indicates 

that Washington’s largest contribution 

to any projected downwind 

nonattainment site is 0.22 ppb and 

Washington’s largest contribution to any 

projected downwind maintenance-only 

site is 0.09 ppb.12 These values are 

below the one percent screening 

threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore 

there are no identified linkages between 

Washington and 2017 downwind 

projected nonattainment and 

maintenance sites. Note that the EPA 

has not done an assessment to 

determine the applicability for the use 

of the one percent screening threshold 

for western states that contribute above 

the one percent threshold. There may be 

additional considerations that may 

impact regulatory decisions regarding 

‘‘potential’’ linkages in the west 

identified by the modeling. 

IV. Proposed Action 

As discussed in Section II, 

Washington concluded that emissions 

from the State do not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

standard in any other state. The EPA’s 

modeling, discussed in Section III, 

confirms this finding. Based on the 

modeling data and the information 

provided in Washington’s May 11, 2015 

submittal, we are proposing to approve 

the submittal for purposes of meeting 

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

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

standard. The EPA’s modeling confirms 

the results of the State’s analysis: 

Washington does not significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 2008 ozone 

standard in any other state. 

V. 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, the 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 207 / Tuesday, October 27, 2015 / Proposed Rules 65675 

• 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• 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 

it does not involve technical standards; 

and 

• does not provide the 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, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where the EPA or 

an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: October 15, 2015. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2015–27153 Filed 10–26–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0592; FRL–9936–14– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; 

Revision to Visibility Federal 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the 

Minnesota Federal implementation plan 

(FIP) for visibility, to establish emission 

limits for Northern States Power 

Company’s (NSP’s) Sherburne County 

Generating Station (Sherco), pursuant to 

a settlement agreement. The settlement 

agreement, signed by representatives of 

EPA, NSP, and three environmental 

groups, was for resolution of a lawsuit 

filed by the environmental groups for 

EPA to address any contribution from 

Sherco to reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) that the 

Department of Interior (DOI) certified 

was occurring at Voyageurs and Isle 

Royale National Parks. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 27, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0592, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: Aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Regional Office normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. The Regional Office official 

hours of business are Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2015– 

0592. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

in www.regulations.gov or 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 John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

at (312) 886–6067 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What regulations apply to RAVI? 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS