27062 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

• 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. section 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 Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by July 8, 2013. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action 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, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: April 24, 2013. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. In § 52.970, the second table in 

paragraph (e) entitled, ‘‘EPA 

APPROVED LOUISIANA 

NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND 

QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES’’, is 

amended by adding one new entry to 

the end of the table to read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

EPA-APPROVED LOUISIANA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

1997 8-Hour Ozone Section 110 

Maintenance Plan.

Pointe Coupee Parish, LA ........... 2/28/2007 5/9/2013 ............................

[Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

■ 3. Section 52.975 is amended by 

adding paragraph (l) to read as follows: 

§ 52.975 Redesignations and maintenance 

plans; ozone. 

* * * * * 

(l) Approval. The Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(LDEQ) submitted a 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS maintenance plan for the area 

of Pointe Coupee Parish on February 28, 

2007. The area is designated 

unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8- 

hour ozone standard. EPA determined 

this request for Pointe Coupee Parish 

was complete on May 2, 2007. The 

maintenance plan meets the 

requirements of section 110(a)(1) of the 

Clean Air Act, and is consistent with 

EPA’s maintenance plan guidance 

document dated May 20, 2005. The EPA 

therefore approved the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS maintenance plan for the 

area of Pointe Coupee Parish on May 9, 

2013. 

[FR Doc. 2013–10832 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113; FRL–9810–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is disapproving a narrow 

portion of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

West Virginia on August 31, 2011. EPA 

is taking this final action because the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27063 

submittal does not satisfy the Federal 

requirement for inclusion of 

condensable emissions of particulate 

matter (condensables) within the 

definition of ‘‘regulated new source 

review (NSR) pollutant’’ for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and 

particulate matter emissions less than or 

equal to ten micrometers in diameter 

(PM10). In addition, because West 

Virginia’s August 31, 2011 SIP revision 

does not adequately account for 

condensable emissions within the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ 

EPA is also disapproving specific 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) portions of related infrastructure 

SIP submissions required by the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) to implement, maintain, 

and enforce the 1997 fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) and ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS), the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. This 

action is being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0113. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the West Virginia 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 

57th Street SE., Charleston, West 

Virginia 25304. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Gordon, (215) 814–2039, or by 

email at gordon.mike@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

EPA granted full approval of West 

Virginia’s August 2011 SIP submission 

and the PSD portions of related 

infrastructure submissions required by 

the CAA on October 17, 2012 (77 FR 

63736) but took no action on the narrow 

issue of the requirement to include 

condensable emissions in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ in the 

State’s PSD program for PM2.5 and PM10. 

EPA has subsequently determined that 

the omission of condensables from this 

definition in the state’s regulation at 

45CSR14 is cause for disapproval of that 

narrow portion of the SIP submittal and 

the related infrastructure submissions. 

As a result of this omission, on March 

15, 2013 (78 FR 16449), EPA proposed 

disapproval of a narrow portion of the 

August 2011 SIP revision, as well as 

specific PSD portions of related 

infrastructure submissions required by 

the CAA to implement, maintain, and 

enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone 

NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 

the 2008 lead and ozone NAAQS. A full 

discussion on the background of this 

action and other related actions are 

available in the NPR. No comments 

were received during the public 

comment period. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

This action disapproves the remaining 

narrow portion of the August 2011 SIP 

submission in which EPA took no 

action in the October 17, 2012 final rule, 

specifically, the requirement to include 

condensables in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Also, 

because condensables must be included 

in a PSD program by CAA section 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J), EPA is 

disapproving specific PSD portions of 

related infrastructure submissions 

which are necessary to implement, 

maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5

and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 lead and ozone 

NAAQS. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is disapproving the narrow 

portion of West Virginia’s August 2011 

SIP submission related to the failure to 

include condensables in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’ for PM2.5

and PM10. EPA is disapproving this 

narrow portion of West Virginia’s 

August 2011 SIP submission because 

the definition does not satisfy the 

requirement that PM2.5 and PM10

emissions must include gaseous 

emissions which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. Because these grounds for 

disapproval are narrow and extend only 

to the lack of condensables within the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’, 

this disapproval does not alter EPA’s 

October 17, 2012 approval of the 

remaining portions of West Virginia’s 

August 2011 SIP submittal. 

Additionally, EPA is disapproving 

specific portions of West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions dated 

December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, 

April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 

26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 

(collectively, the West Virginia 

infrastructure SIP submissions) which 

address certain obligations set forth at 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and 

(J) relating to the West Virginia PSD 

permit program. Because West 

Virginia’s definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in 45CSR14 does not include 

condensable particulate emissions, EPA 

is determining that West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions do not 

meet certain statutory and regulatory 

obligations relating to a PSD permit 

program set forth at CAA sections 

110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and (J). EPA is 

disapproving the narrow portion of the 

October 26, 2011 and February 17, 2012 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

West Virginia because West Virginia has 

not met its obligations relating to the 

PSD permit program pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) 

due to the failure to include 

condensables in the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ EPA is also 

disapproving the narrow portions of the 

December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, 

April 3, 2008, and October 1, 2009 

infrastructure SIP submissions from 

West Virginia because West Virginia has 

not met its obligations relating to the 

PSD permit program pursuant to CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 

PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS and the 2006 

PM2.5 NAAQS due to the failure to 

include condensables in the definition 

of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant.’’ Specific 

infrastructure elements which EPA is 

disapproving and their submittal dates 

are listed in the following table. 

Submittal dates NAAQS Infrastructure element(s) disapproved 

in this action 

December 11, 2007 .............................................................................................. 1997 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

April 3, 2008 

December 3, 2007 ................................................................................................ 1997 ozone ............... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

December 11, 2007 

October 1, 2009 .................................................................................................... 2006 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
27064 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

Submittal dates NAAQS Infrastructure element(s) disapproved 

in this action 

October 26, 2011 .................................................................................................. 2008 lead .................. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

February 17, 2012 ................................................................................................ 2008 ozone ............... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

Under CAA section 179(a), final 

disapproval of a submission that 

addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan 

(CAA sections 171–193), or is required 

in response to a finding of substantial 

inadequacy as described in CAA section 

110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock. The 

specific provisions in the submissions 

EPA is disapproving, due to the 

omission of condensables in the 

definition of ‘‘regulated NSR pollutant’’, 

were not submitted by West Virginia to 

meet either of those requirements. 

Therefore, this disapproval does not 

trigger sanctions under CAA section 

179. 

The full or partial disapproval of a SIP 

revision triggers the requirement under 

CAA section 110(c) that EPA 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) no later than two years from 

the date of the disapproval unless the 

State corrects the deficiency, and the 

Administrator approves the plan or plan 

revision before the Administrator 

promulgates such FIP. From discussions 

with West Virginia, EPA anticipates that 

the State will make a submission 

rectifying the deficiency regarding 

condensables. Further, EPA anticipates 

acting on West Virginia’s submissions 

within the two year time frame prior to 

our FIP obligation on this very narrow 

issue. In the interim, EPA expects the 

State to account for condensables in 

emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 consistent 

with Federal regulations for PSD 

permitting. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this case, EPA disapproving 

a narrow portion of the West Virginia 

August 2011 SIP submittal and PSD 

portions of other related infrastructure 

submissions required by the CAA that 

do not meet Federal requirements. This 

action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this action does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because this rule to 

disapprove a narrow provision in the 

August 2011 SIP submission and to 

disapprove narrow portions related to 

the definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in the West Virginia 

infrastructure SIP submissions is not 

approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

this action will not impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. 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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by July 8, 2013. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action disapproving a 

narrow portion of the August 2011 West 

Virginia SIP submissions and certain 

PSD related infrastructure submissions 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

dioxide, Lead, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: April 25, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 27065 

1Portions of the bi-state Charlotte Area were 

previously designated as a moderate nonattainment 

area for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. The Area was 

subsequently redesignated to attainment for the 1- 

hour ozone NAAQS, and a maintenance plan was 

approved into the North Carolina SIP. The original 

Charlotte–Gastonia, North Carolina 1-hour 

moderate ozone nonattainment area consisted of 

Mecklenburg and Gaston counties in North 

Carolina. 

Subpart XX—West Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2522, paragraph (j) is added 

to read as follows. 

§ 52.2522 Approval status. 

* * * * * 

(j)(1) EPA is disapproving a narrow 

portion of West Virginia’s August 31, 

2011 submittal because it does not 

satisfy the requirement that emissions of 

PM2.5 and PM10 shall include gaseous 

emissions which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. This disapproval extends 

only to the lack of condensable 

emissions within the definition of 

‘‘regulated NSR pollutant,’’ found at 

45CSR14 section 2.66, and does not 

alter EPA’s October 17, 2012 (77 FR 

63736) approval of the remaining 

portions of West Virginia’s August 2011 

SIP submittal. 

(2) EPA is disapproving specific 

portions of West Virginia’s 

infrastructure SIP submissions dated 

December 3, 2007, December 11, 2007, 

April 3, 2008, October 1, 2009, October 

26, 2011, and February 17, 2012 which 

address certain obligations set forth at 

CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II) and 

(J) relating to the West Virginia PSD 

permit program. Because West 

Virginia’s definition of ‘‘regulated NSR 

pollutant’’ in 45CSR14 does not address 

condensables for PM2.5 and PM10

emissions, EPA is determining that West 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP 

submissions do not meet certain 

statutory and regulatory obligations 

relating to a PSD permit program set 

forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II) and (J) for the narrow issue of 

condensables as set forth in the 

following table. 

Submittal dates NAAQS Infrastructure element(s) disapproved 

in this action 

December 11, 2007; April 3, 2008 ....................................................................... 1997 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

December 3, 2007; December 11, 2007 .............................................................. 1997 ozone ............... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

October 1, 2009 .................................................................................................... 2006 PM2.5 ................ 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

October 26, 2011 .................................................................................................. 2008 lead .................. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

February 17, 2012 ................................................................................................ 2008 ozone ............... 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), (C), and (J). 

[FR Doc. 2013–10935 Filed 5–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0140; FRL–9810–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina; 

Control Techniques Guidelines and 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving several 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted to EPA by the State 

of North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources (NC DENR), to 

address the nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) requirements for the North 

Carolina portion of the CharlotteGastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina— 

South Carolina 1997 8-hour ozone 

nonattainment area (hereafter referred to 

as the ‘‘bi-state Charlotte Area’’). The bistate Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) includes six full 

counties and one partial county in 

North Carolina; and one partial county 

in South Carolina. Additionally, EPA is 

approving in part, and conditionally 

approving in part, several SIP revisions 

to address the volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) RACT requirements 

which include related control 

technology guidelines (CTG) 

requirements. Together, these SIP 

revisions establish the RACT 

requirements for sources located in the 

North Carolina portion of the bi-state 

Charlotte Area. In a separate 

rulemaking, EPA has already taken 

action on RACT and CTG requirements 

for the South Carolina portion of the bistate Charlotte Area. EPA has evaluated 

the revisions to North Carolina’s SIP, 

and has made the determination that 

they are consistent, with the exception 

of applicability for some CTG VOC 

sources, with statutory and regulatory 

requirements and EPA guidance. With 

respect to the applicability provisions 

for the CTG VOC sources noted above, 

EPA is finalizing a conditional approval 

of these provisions. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be 

effective June 10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2009–0140. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person 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 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane 

Spann, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9029. 

Ms. Spann can also be reached via 

electronic mail at spann.jane@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. This Action 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On April 30, 2004, EPA designated 

the bi-state Charlotte Area as a moderate 

nonattainment area with respect to the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.1 See 69 FR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES