58302 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

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: EPA has established a docket 

for this action under EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0538. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents are listed at http://

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps, multi-volume 

reports), and some may not be publicly 

available in either location (e.g., CBI). 

To inspect the hard copy materials, 

please schedule an appointment during 

normal business hours with the contact 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La 

weeda Ward, EPA Region IX, (213) 244– 

1812, ward.laweeda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses PCAPCD Rule 502, 

New Source Review. In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving this local 

rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in a subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. 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, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: July 31, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23002 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0586; FRL–9917–22– 

Region–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Implementation Plans; California; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the California Regional Haze 

(RH) State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) documenting 

that the State’s existing plan is making 

adequate progress to achieve visibility 

goals by 2018. The California RH SIP 

revision addresses the Regional Haze 

Rule (RHR) requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report 

describing progress in achieving 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) to 

improve visibility in Federally 

designated Class I areas in California 

and in nearby states that may be affected 

by emissions from sources in California. 

EPA is proposing to approve California’s 

determination that the existing RH SIP 

is adequate to meet the visibility goals, 

and requires no substantive revision at 

this time. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

the designated contact at the address 

listed below on or before October 29, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0586, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 415–947–3579 (Attention: 

Thomas Webb). 

• Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: 

Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air 

Division (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California 94105. Hand 

and courier deliveries are only accepted 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: EPA’s policy is to 

include all comments received in the 

public docket without change. We may 

make comments 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 for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or that is otherwise protected through 

http://www.regulations.gov or email. 

The http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, we 

will include your email address 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 not 

include special characters or any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents for this 

proposed action are listed in the index 

for docket number EPA–R09–OAR– 

2014–0586 on http://

www.regulations.gov. Although listed in 

the index, some information is not 

publicly available, such as CBI or other 

information that is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 

during normal business hours at the 

Planning Office of the Air Division, 

AIR–2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. To 

view hard copies of documents listed in 

the docket index, EPA requests that you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb may be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at webb.thomas@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

II. Background on Regional Haze 

III. Background on Regional Haze Plans 

IV. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress 

Reports 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 58303 

1Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(g) for the exact 

Rule requirements. 

2Please refer to 40 CFR 51.308(h) for the exact 

Rule requirements. 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of California’s Progress 

Report 

A. Status of Control Strategies 

B. Emission Reductions and Progress 

C. Visibility Progress 

D. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

E. Assessment of Current Strategy 

F. Review of Visibility Monitoring Strategy 

G. Determination of Adequacy 

H. Consultation with Federal Land 

Managers 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Overview of Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve CARB’s 

determination that the existing 

California RH SIP is adequate to achieve 

the established RPGs for Class I areas by 

2018, and therefore requires no 

substantive revision at this time. The 

State’s determination and EPA’s 

proposed approval are based on the 

California Regional Haze Plan 2014 

Progress Report (‘‘Progress Report’’ or 

‘‘Report’’) submitted by CARB to EPA 

on June 16, 2014, that addresses 40 CFR 

51.308(g) and (h) of the RHR. The 

Progress Report demonstrates that the 

emission control measures in the 

existing RH SIP are sufficient to enable 

California, as well as other states with 

Class I areas affected by emissions from 

sources in California, to meet all 

established RPGs for 2018. We are also 

proposing to find that CARB fulfilled 

the requirements in 51.308(i)(2), (3), and 

(4) to provide Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) with an opportunity to consult 

on the RH SIP revision, describe how 

CARB addressed the FLMs’ comments, 

and provide procedures for continuing 

the consultation. 

II. Background on Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

produced by many sources and 

activities located across a broad 

geographic area that emit fine particles 

that impair visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light, thereby reducing the 

clarity, color, and visible distance that 

one can see. These fine particles also 

can cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contribute to 

environmental impacts, such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication of water 

bodies. 

The RHR uses the deciview as the 

principle metric for measuring visibility 

and for the RPGs that serve as interim 

visibility goals toward meeting the 

national visibility goal of reaching 

natural conditions by 2064. A deciview 

expresses uniform changes in haziness 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Deciviews are determined 

by using air quality measurement to 

estimate light extinction, and then 

transforming the value of light 

extinction using a logarithmic function. 

Deciview is a more useful measure for 

tracking progress in improving visibility 

than light extinction because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview. 

III. Background on Regional Haze Plans 

In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA 

Amendments of 1977, Congress created 

a program to protect visibility in 

designated national parks and 

wilderness areas, establishing as a 

national goal the ‘‘prevention of any 

future, and the remedying of any 

existing, impairment of visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas which 

impairment results from manmade air 

pollution.’’ In accordance with section 

169A of the CAA and after consulting 

with the Department of Interior, EPA 

promulgated a list of 156 mandatory 

Class I Federal areas where visibility is 

identified as an important value (44 FR 

69122, November 30, 1979). In this 

notice, we refer to mandatory Class I 

Federal areas as ‘‘Class I areas.’’ 

California has 29 Class I areas, the most 

of any state. 

With the CAA Amendments of 1990, 

Congress added section 169B to address 

regional haze issues. EPA promulgated 

a rule to address regional haze on July 

1, 1999, known as the Regional Haze 

Rule (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised 

the existing visibility regulations in 40 

CFR 51.308 to integrate provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and to establish a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. 

CARB submitted its initial RH SIP to 

EPA on March 17, 2009, in accordance 

with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 

for the first regional haze planning 

period ending in 2018. EPA approved 

the California RH SIP for the first 

planning period on June 14, 2011 (76 FR 

34608). The Progress Report from CARB 

is the first evaluation of whether the 

existing California RH SIP is sufficient 

to enable California, and other states 

affected by emissions from sources in 

California, to meet the established 

visibility goals for 2018. 

IV. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Reports 

The RHR in 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires 

states to submit a report every five years 

in the form of a SIP revision to evaluate 

progress toward achieving the RPGs for 

each Class I area in the state and for 

those areas outside the state that may be 

affected by emissions from within the 

state. The first progress reports are due 

five years from the submittal date of 

each state’s initial RH SIP. These reports 

must contain an evaluation of seven 

elements, at a minimum, and include a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

state’s existing RH SIP. In summary,1

the seven elements are: (1) A 

description of the status of 

implementation of all measures 

included in the current RH SIP for 

achieving the RPGs in Class I areas 

within and outside the State; (2) a 

summary of the emission reductions 

achieved in the State through 

implementation of these measures; (3) 

an assessment of visibility conditions 

and changes on the most impaired and 

least impaired days for each Class I area 

in the State in terms of 5-year averages 

of the annual values; (4) an analysis of 

changes in emissions over the past 5 

years contributing to visibility 

impairment from all sources and 

activities within the State based on the 

most recently updated emissions 

inventory; (5) an assessment of any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the State 

over the past 5 years that have limited 

or impeded progress in reducing 

pollutant emissions and improving 

visibility; (6) an assessment of whether 

the elements and strategies in the 

current RH SIP are sufficient to enable 

the State, or other states affected by its 

emissions, to achieve the established 

RPGs; and (7) a review of the State’s 

visibility monitoring strategy and any 

necessary modifications. 

Based on an evaluation of the factors 

listed above as well as any other 

relevant information, a state is required 

in 40 CFR 51.308(h) to determine the 

adequacy of its existing RH SIP. The 

state must take one of four possible 

actions based on the analysis in its 

progress report. In summary,2 these 

actions are to (1) provide a negative 

declaration to EPA that no further 

substantive revisions to the State’s 

existing RH SIP is needed to achieve the 

RPGs; (2) provide notification to EPA 

and to other states in its region that its 

RH SIP is or may be inadequate to 

ensure reasonable progress due to 

emissions from sources in other states, 

and collaborate with other states to 

develop additional strategies to address 

the deficiencies; (3) provide notification 

and available information to EPA that 

the State’s RH SIP is or may be 

inadequate to ensure reasonable 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58304 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

3CARB defines ROG emissions as reactive 

organic gases that are a precursor to organic carbon 

aerosols. ROG means any compound of carbon, 

which is how EPA defines volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). However, the lists of 

compounds of carbon that are excluded from the 

respective lists of ROGs and VOCs differ to some 

extent. 

4California RH SIP Section 4.7: Regional Analysis 

of Source Categories, Proposed rule at 76 FR 13944 

(March 15, 2011), and Final rule at 76 FR 34608 

(June 14, 2011). 

progress due to emissions from sources 

in another country; or (4) revise its RH 

SIP within one year to address the 

deficiencies if the State determines that 

its existing plan is or may be inadequate 

to ensure reasonable progress in one or 

more Class I areas due to emissions from 

sources within the State. 

A state must document that it 

provided FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation prior to holding a public 

hearing on a RH SIP or plan revision as 

required in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2). In 

addition, a state must include a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments from the FLMs, and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

with the FLMs as required in 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3) and (4). 

V. EPA’s Evaluation of California’s 

Progress Report 

This section describes California’s 

Progress Report and EPA’s evaluation of 

the Report in relation to the seven 

elements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 

the determination of adequacy in 40 

CFR 51.308(h). We also review the 

requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2) for 

state and FLM coordination on a plan 

revision. However, to facilitate a better 

understanding of the Report’s contents, 

we first provide background information 

on the framework for measuring 

visibility progress, the causes of haze in 

California, and the sources of data used 

in the Report. 

Framework for Measuring Progress: 

Visibility conditions at California’s 29 

Class I areas are calculated in deciviews 

using data collected from 17 Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments (IMPROVE) monitors. 

These deciview values are then 

compared to the State’s RPGs (i.e., 

visibility goals) for 2018 in each Class 

I area. The RPGs are based on the 

annual average of the projected 

deciview level for the 20 percent best 

days and the 20 percent worst days 

measured at each Class I area. The RPGs 

in 2018 for the worst days, the key 

indicator of progress, are the result of 

atmospheric modeling based on 

projected emission reductions from 

control strategies in the California RH 

SIP as well as emission reductions 

expected to result from other Federal, 

state and local air quality programs 

among other factors. The RPGs must 

provide for an improvement in visibility 

on the 20 percent worst days and ensure 

no degradation on the 20 percent best 

days, compared to average visibility 

conditions during the baseline period 

from 2000 to 2004. 

Causes of Haze: The three primary 

drivers of haze on the worst days in 

California are nitrates mostly from 

mobile sources, sulfates mostly from 

offshore and international sources, and 

organic carbon (OC) mostly from natural 

sources. Accordingly, California’s 

control strategies target reducing the 

precursors of these pollutants: nitrogen 

oxide (NOX) for nitrates, sulfur oxide 

(SOX) for sulfates, and reactive organic 

gases (ROG) 3 for organic carbon, along 

with fine particulate matter (PM2.5) that 

is directly emitted. For more 

information regarding the causes of haze 

in California and other background 

information, please refer to the 

California RH SIP and EPA’s evaluation 

of that SIP, both of which are available 

in the docket for this rulemaking.4

Data Sources for the Progress Report: 

CARB’s analysis is primarily based on 

IMPROVE monitoring data for the fiveyear period from 2007 to 2011 (i.e., 

current conditions) compared to 

monitoring data from 2000 to 2004 (i.e., 

baseline conditions). For each of these 

time periods, the RHR requires the use 

of a five-year average of annual average 

deciview values to represent the 

baseline and current conditions. CARB 

also relied on the ‘‘Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) Regional Summary 

Report,’’ dated June 2013, that focuses 

on the five years (2005 to 2009) 

following the baseline period. While the 

most recent IMPROVE data for 2012 was 

not available in time for the Progress 

Report’s analysis, a summary of the 

2012 monitoring data is appended to the 

Report, and is referenced to support the 

analysis of current conditions. 

A. Status of Control Strategies 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

The California RH SIP relies on the 

continued implementation of adopted 

Federal, state and local control 

measures, which were developed 

primarily to meet the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), to 

address the anthropogenic sources of 

haze in California. In its Progress 

Report, CARB confirms that mobile 

sources are the primary contributor of 

NOX, while also contributing SOX, OC, 

and PM2.5 to haze at Class I areas. 

Although many aspects of mobile 

sources are regulated by Federal laws, 

the Progress Report notes that California 

has some of the most aggressive and 

innovative State and local regulations 

for mobile sources in the country. The 

Progress Report lists strategies adopted 

and implemented by the State that target 

emission reductions from light-duty 

passenger vehicles, heavy-duty diesel 

trucks, and off-road equipment, which 

are some of the largest sources of NOX

emissions. Actual measures include fuel 

and engine standards, pollution control 

technology, goods movement and 

transportation rules, and consumer 

product requirements. In addition, local 

air districts implement stationary source 

and other control programs including 

New Source Review and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration permits that 

also reduce or prevent emissions that 

might contribute to haze. 

The Progress Report includes a list of 

two dozen new control strategies that 

were not in the emission inventory used 

to project the deciview level for the 

RPGs in 2018. Due to nonattainment of 

NAAQS, CARB and local districts are 

regularly adopting or revising rules and 

creating new incentives to reduce 

emissions. These new control measures 

should further reduce emissions beyond 

those projected from the control 

strategies in the California RH SIP. 

The Progress Report also includes an 

update on the State’s single stationary 

source, the Valero Refinery in Benicia, 

California, that was required to install 

and operate Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) controls. The new 

control equipment includes low-NOX

burners and selective catalytic reduction 

to reduce NOX, and scrubbers to remove 

SO2 and PM10 (large particulate matter). 

These controls, installed and in 

operation at the Valero Refinery since 

February 2011, two years before the 

deadline for compliance, are already 

reducing emissions. The deciview and 

light extinction data from 2011 (20.2 dv) 

and 2012 (20.1) for Point Reyes National 

Seashore, the most affected Class I area 

by emissions from this source, are 

already showing a reduction in nitrates 

and sulfates compared to 2010 (22 dv). 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) to describe the 

status of all measures included in the 

California RH SIP. CARB generally 

describes the types of measures in its 

RH SIP, and includes new control 

strategies that should contribute to 

further improvement in visibility. The 

report identifies NOX emissions from 

mobile sources as the primary source of 

anthropogenic emissions causing or 

contributing to haze, and focuses on 

related control measures. The report 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 58305 

5Progress Report Appendix E: Comments of 

Federal Land Management Agencies with CARB 

Responses. 

6 Id. Appendix B: Emission Inventory 2013 

Almanac. 

7 Id. California Statewide Inventory Summary, 

Table 2, page 9. 

8 Id. California Statewide Inventory Trends, 

Figure 3, page 10. 

9 Id. Statewide 2018 Reasonable Progress Goal 

Summary, Table 3, page 12, and Revised Table 3. 

also includes the status of BART 

controls at the Valero Refinery, the only 

identified source in California subject to 

BART. In response to a comment from 

FLMs requesting additional information 

regarding Federal and state regulations 

that were accounted for in California’s 

RPGs, CARB noted that its RH SIP 

submitted in 2009 included a discussion 

of the regulations used to establish the 

RPGs for 2018.5 The RH SIP is included 

in the docket for this action. A listing of 

state and local California air district 

rules within the federally enforceable 

SIP, is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

region9/air/sips/index.html. 

B. Emission Reductions and Progress 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

CARB provides a recently updated 

California Statewide Emission Inventory 

from 2000 to 2020 at five-year intervals 

that demonstrates steadily decreasing 

emissions of regional haze precursors 

(i.e., NOX, ROG, SOX, and PM2.5) from 

about 75 categories of sources.6 NOX

emissions are expected to decrease from 

about 1.4 million tons per year (tpy) in 

2000 to 567,000 tpy in 2020. ROG 

emissions are expected to decrease from 

about 1 million tpy in 2000 to 570,000 

tpy in 2020. SOX emissions are expected 

decrease from about 106,000 tpy in 2000 

to 30,000 tpy in 2020. PM2.5 emissions 

are expected to decrease from about 

241,000 tpy in 2000 to 151,000 tpy in 

2020. 

Statewide emissions also are 

summarized by pollutant for each of the 

three major categories of sources: 

Stationary, area, and mobile.7 Of 

particular interest are NOX emissions 

from mobile sources, which are 

expected to decrease from about 1.1 

million tpy in 2000 to 995,000 tpy in 

2005; 706,000 tpy in 2010; 557,000 tpy 

in 2015; and 434,000 tpy in 2020. The 

statewide emissions inventory and 

summary are accompanied by a graph of 

statewide inventory trends that shows 

decreasing emissions for all four 

visibility-impairing pollutants from 

2000 to 2020. Mobile source emissions 

of NOX, ROG, SOX, and PM2.5, listed 

above in tpy, are projected to decline by 

about 60, 65, 85, and 50 percent, 

respectively, from 2000 to 2020.8

Stationary and area sources for these 

four pollutants are also projected to 

decline over this 20-year period. Overall 

statewide emissions of NOX, ROG, SOX, 

and PM2.5 for stationary, area, and 

mobile sources are expected to decline 

by almost 40 percent from 2000 to 2020. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirements 

in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) to provide a 

summary of the emission reductions 

achieved through implementation of the 

control measures relied upon to achieve 

the RPGs. The trend analysis for the 

largest category of emissions, NOX from 

mobile sources, indicates that these 

emissions are expected to decline from 

1,131,500 tons per year in 2000 to 

433,620 tons per year by 2020, a 

reduction of almost 62 percent. As 

reported by CARB, statewide emissions 

of ROG, SOX, and PM2.5 are also 

declining over this 20-year time period. 

We also propose to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) to analyze the 

change in emissions over the past five 

years of pollutants contributing to 

visibility impairment from all sources 

and activities within the state, using the 

most recently updated emissions 

inventory. The California Statewide 

Emission Inventory is recently updated 

and includes inventories for 2005 and 

2010 that represent the past five years. 

C. Visibility Progress 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

CARB addresses progress on the 20 

percent best days and 20 percent worst 

days by comparing current conditions 

(five-year average from 2007 to 2011) to 

baseline conditions (five-year average 

from 2000 to 2004), and current 

conditions on worst days to the RPGs in 

2018. A summary of progress on best 

and worst days is shown in Tables 1 and 

2 that are adapted from the Progress 

Report.9 As shown in the tables, CARB 

divides the 17 monitors and 29 Class I 

areas into four regional zones for its 

analysis: Northern California, Sierra 

California, Coastal California, and 

Southern California. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ON BEST DAYS

[In deciviews] 

IMPROVE Monitor Class I Areas 

Baseline best 

days 

(2000–04) 

Current 

best days 

(2007–11) 

Visibility 

change 

Northern California 

TRIN ........................................ Marble Mountain WA .............................................................

Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel WA .....................................................

3.4 3.0 0.4 

LABE ....................................... Lava Beds NM .......................................................................

South Warner WA ..................................................................

3.2 2.9 0.3 

LAVO ....................................... Lassen Volcanic NP ...............................................................

Caribou WA ............................................................................

Thousand Lakes WA .............................................................

2.7 2.3 0.4 

Sierra California 

BLIS ......................................... Desolation WA .......................................................................

Mokelumne WA ......................................................................

2.5 2.1 0.4 

HOOV ...................................... Hoover WA ............................................................................. 1.4 1.3 0.1 

YOSE ...................................... Yosemite NP ..........................................................................

Emigrant WA ..........................................................................

3.4 2.5 0.9 

KAIS ........................................ Ansel Adams WA ...................................................................

Kaiser WA ..............................................................................

John Muir WA ........................................................................

2.3 1.5 0.8 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58306 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ON BEST DAYS—Continued 

[In deciviews] 

IMPROVE Monitor Class I Areas 

Baseline best 

days 

(2000–04) 

Current 

best days 

(2007–11) 

Visibility 

change 

SEQU ...................................... Sequoia NP ............................................................................

Kings Canyon NP ..................................................................

8.8 7.6 1.2 

DOME ...................................... Dome Lands WA .................................................................... 5.1 4.9 0.2 

Coastal California 

REDW ..................................... Redwood NP .......................................................................... 6.1 5.8 0.3 

PORE ...................................... Point Reyes NS ..................................................................... 10.5 8.6 1.9 

PINN ........................................ Pinnacles WA .........................................................................

Ventana WA ...........................................................................

8.9 7.8 1.1 

RAFA ....................................... San Rafael WA ...................................................................... 6.4 5.2 1.2 

Southern California 

SAGA ...................................... San Gabriel WA .....................................................................

Cucamonga WA .....................................................................

4.8 4.5 0.3 

SAGO ...................................... San Gorgonio WA ..................................................................

San Jacinto WA .....................................................................

5.4 4.0 1.4 

AGTI ........................................ Agua Tibia WA ....................................................................... 9.6 7.1 2.5 

JOSH ....................................... Joshua Tree NP ..................................................................... 6.1 4.8 1.3 

WA = Wilderness Area NM = National Monument NP = National Park NS = National Seashore 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ON WORST DAYS

[In deciviews] 

IMPROVE Monitor Class I Areas 

Baseline worst 

days 

(2000–04) 

Current worst 

days 

(2007–11) 

Visibility 

change 

RPG 

(2018) 

Current 

progress to 

RPG 

Northern California 

TRIN ..................... Marble Mountain WA ........................

Y.B.-Middle Eel WA ..........................

17.4 15.2 2.1 16.4 210% 

LABE ..................... Lava Beds NM ..................................

South Warner WA ............................

15.1 13.0 2.1 14.4 300% 

LAVO .................... Lassen Volcanic NP .........................

Caribou WA ......................................

Thousand Lakes WA ........................

14.1 15.6 ¥1.5 13.3 ¥188% 

Sierra California 

BLIS ...................... Desolation WA ..................................

Mokelumne WA ................................

12.6 13.0 ¥0.4 12.3 ¥133% 

HOOV ................... Hoover WA ....................................... 12.9 11.5 1.4 12.5 350% 

YOSE .................... Yosemite NP .....................................

Emigrant WA ....................................

17.6 16.0 1.6 16.7 178% 

KAIS ...................... Ansel Adams WA .............................

Kaiser WA .........................................

John Muir WA ...................................

15.5 14.9 0.6 14.9 100% 

SEQU .................... Sequoia NP ......................................

Kings Canyon NP .............................

25.4 22.3 3.1 22.7 115% 

DOME ................... Dome Lands WA .............................. 19.4 18.3 1.1 18.1 85% 

Coastal California 

REDW ................... Redwood NP .................................... 18.5 18.5 0 17.8 0% 

PORE .................... Point Reyes NS ................................ 22.8 21.6 1.2 21.3 80% 

PINN ..................... Pinnacles WA ...................................

Ventana WA .....................................

18.5 17.5 1.0 16.7 56% 

RAFA .................... San Rafael WA ................................. 18.8 18.0 0.8 17.3 53% 

Southern California 

SAGA .................... San Gabriel WA ................................

Cucamonga WA ...............................

19.9 18.0 * 1.9 17.4 76% * 

SAGO ................... San Gorgonio WA ............................

San Jacinto WA ................................

22.2 18.7 3.5 19.9 152% 

AGTI ..................... Agua Tibia WA ................................. 23.5 19.8 3.7 21.6 195% 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 58307 

10See Revised Table 3, Technical Correction for 

Current Best Days (2007–2011), August 6, 2014. 11 Id. Appendix D: Technical Analyses of Factors 

Impeding Progress. 12 Id. Page 11. 

13 Id, Appendix C: Deciview Record (2000–2012), 

Table C–3. 

14 Id. Section 4, pages 13–17. 

15 Id. Wildfire Acreage Burned in California, 

1950–2010, Figure 4, page 14. 

16 Id, The 2008 ‘‘Lightning Strike Complex,’’ 

Figure 5, page 15. 

17 Id, NASA Satellite Photo: July 9, 2008, Figure 

6, page 16. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ON WORST DAYS—Continued 

[In deciviews] 

IMPROVE Monitor Class I Areas 

Baseline worst 

days 

(2000–04) 

Current worst 

days 

(2007–11) 

Visibility 

change 

RPG 

(2018) 

Current 

progress to 

RPG 

JOSH .................... Joshua Tree NP ............................... 19.6 16.1 3.5 17.9 206% 

WA = Wilderness Area NM = National Monument NP = National Park NS = National Seashore 

* This data is from 2005 to 2008 due to fire damage to the monitor in 2009. 

Current visibility conditions have 

improved on the 20 percent best days at 

all California’s Class I areas as indicated 

in the last column of Table 1 that shows 

positive visibility change compared to 

the best days baseline for all 17 

monitors.10 On the 20 percent worst 

days, the current conditions already 

meet the RPGs for 2018 at nine of the 

17 monitors as shown in Table 2. At five 

monitors, current conditions on worst 

days range from 53 to 85 percent of the 

improvement in visibility needed to 

meet the respective RPGs. At the 

remaining three monitors, current 

conditions on worst days indicate that 

six Class I areas are not making progress 

in achieving the RPGs. 

The Progress Report explains that the 

limited progress in improving visibility 

at six Class I areas, all located in 

northern California, is due to smoke 

from wildfires as documented in 

Appendix D of the Progress Report.11

The six Class I areas and the associated 

monitors are Lassen Volcanic National 

Park, Caribou Wilderness Area, and 

Thousand Lakes Wilderness Area 

(LAVO); Desolation Wilderness Area 

and Mokelumne Wilderness Area 

(BLIS); and Redwood National Park 

(REDW). CARB explains that wildfire 

smoke has caused unusually high 

deciviews on the worst days at the 

LAVO monitor in 2008 and 2009, at the 

BLIS monitor in 2007 and 2008, and at 

the REDW monitor in 2008. CARB 

provides technical analyses of how 

wildfire smoke can elevate the deciview 

value on a sufficient number of the 20 

percent worst days to increase the 

annual average deciview as well as skew 

the five-year average deciview at a given 

monitor. CARB also notes that offshore 

emissions from ocean vessels may 

contribute to sulfate formation that 

impairs visibility at some remote 

monitors near the coast where there are 

no other major sources of sulfates.12

This may be the case for Pinnacles 

Wilderness Area and Ventana 

Wilderness Area (PINN), and Redwood 

National Park (REDW), where visibility 

improvement during the current fiveyear period is slower than elsewhere, 

although these three Class I areas are 

affected by wildfire smoke in some 

years as well. 

CARB also includes a Statewide 2018 

Reasonable Progress Goal Summary 

using 2012 Data 13 that represents the 

five-year average for current conditions 

from 2008 to 2012. This updated table 

shows that on the worst days only three 

Class I areas represented by one monitor 

(LAVO) have worse visibility during 

current conditions (15.6 dv) compared 

to the baseline (14.1 dv). Of the 

remaining 16 monitors, 14 already 

exceed and two (REDW and PINN) are 

expected to meet the RPGs in 2018 for 

the worst days based on trends reflected 

by the updated current conditions. On 

the best days, the average current 

conditions from 2008 to 2012 meet or 

exceed the RPGs at all 17 monitors. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) to assess the 

visibility conditions and changes in 

each of the State’s Class I areas for the 

least and most impaired days in terms 

of the five-year averages of the annual 

values. CARB describes progress at each 

of the Class I areas on the best and worst 

days using data from the IMPROVE 

monitors to analyze changes in visibility 

conditions for current conditions (2007 

to 2011), current conditions compared 

to baseline conditions, and over the past 

five years, which is essentially 

equivalent to the baseline comparison. 

D. Assessment of Changes Impeding 

Visibility Progress 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

The Progress Report includes an 

assessment of changes in natural and 

anthropogenic emissions that impede 

visibility progress based on a review of 

emission inventories, monitoring data, 

and other sources of information.14

CARB identifies three factors, largely 

beyond the State’s control, that interfere 

with progress toward improved 

visibility on worst days at some of its 

Class I areas. These factors are wildfire 

smoke from natural sources, offshore 

shipping emissions from anthropogenic 

sources largely outside California’s 

jurisdiction, and Asian dust from 

natural and anthropogenic sources 

outside of California’s jurisdiction. Each 

of these types of emissions can cause a 

spike in pollutants at a sampling 

monitor that could be included in the 20 

percent worst days. Wildfire smoke 

results in elevated levels of organic 

carbon. Offshore shipping results in 

elevated levels of sulfates at monitors 

near the coast during the summer. Asian 

dust combined with industrial pollution 

in the form of coarse mass and fine soils 

are transported in the jet stream over the 

Pacific Ocean, especially during the 

spring. 

CARB provides documentation and 

analysis supporting the fact that 

wildfires are occurring more frequently 

in California over the past decade.15

Wildfire smoke can cause increases in 

organic carbon concentrations at 

monitors for several consecutive days or 

weeks. In some cases, the effect of 

wildfires is high enough to increase the 

deciview value of the annual as well as 

five-year averages on the 20 percent 

worst days. The Progress Report 

includes the example of a large number 

of wildfires in northern California 

known as the ‘‘2008 Lightning Strike 

Complex’’ that occurred in June through 

August 2008. These fires had an 

overwhelming impact on visibility 

progress at many monitors throughout 

California and the West.16 CARB 

includes in the Report a satellite photo 

of smoke plumes on July 9, 2008, that 

indicates the location of the three 

monitors (REDW, BLIS, and LAVO) 

where visibility progress was lagging 

during the current conditions time 

period (2007 to 2011).17 Moreover, with 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58308 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

18 Id, Wildfire Frequency and Intensity, Figure 7, 

page 17. 

80 percent of the State considered 

wildland 18 and smoke drifting long 

distances, all of California’s Class I areas 

are susceptible to wildfires. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to assess any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions within or outside the State 

over the past five years that have limited 

or impeded progress in reducing 

emissions and improving visibility. 

While CARB’s analysis primarily 

focuses on wildfires, it also discusses 

the effects of emissions from offshore 

shipping and Asian dust. 

E. Assessment of Current Strategy 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

The Progress Report asserts that 

California’s current control strategy is 

on track to meet the RPGs for 2018 at 

all 29 Class I areas throughout the State. 

CARB cites the IMPROVE data for 2011 

in which each of the Class I areas is 

already below the 2018 visibility goal. 

Moreover, the State continues to 

strengthen existing control measures, 

adopt new control measures, and 

develop plans with even newer 

measures to meet upcoming NAAQS as 

well as other new Federal and State air 

quality requirements. 

The Progress Report indicates that the 

current strategy also is sufficient to 

lessen the impact of California’s 

emissions on neighboring states. In the 

California RH SIP, CARB determined 

that the State’s emissions contributed 

about three percent or less of nitrate on 

the worst days at Jarbidge Wilderness 

Area in Nevada; Kalmiopsis Wilderness 

Area and Crater Lake National Park in 

Oregon; and Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness Area and Grand Canyon 

National Park in Arizona. With 

California NOX emissions projected to 

decrease by about 60 percent from 2000 

to 2020, these small contributions will 

be further reduced. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) to assess whether 

the current elements and strategies in 

the RH SIP are sufficient to enable 

California, or other states affected by 

California’s emissions, to meet all 

established RPGs. As described above, 

monitoring data indicates current 

visibility conditions already meet or 

exceed the RPGs for the 20 percent best 

days at all of the State’s Class I areas. 

In addition, 26 of the State’s 29 Class I 

areas have already achieved the 2018 

RPGs for the worst days or are on track 

to meet those RPGs by 2018. The lack 

of progress at the three remaining areas 

on the worst 20 percent days is largely 

due to wildfires. Significant emission 

reductions within California are also 

expected to benefit Class I areas outside 

the State that are affected by California’s 

emissions. CARB provides sufficient 

evidence to demonstrate that its current 

strategy is adequate to enable all 

affected Class I areas to meet the RPGs 

for 2018. 

F. Review of Visibility Monitoring 

Strategy 

1. CARB’s Analysis 

California will continue to rely on the 

IMPROVE network to collect and 

analyze the visibility data, and has no 

need to make any changes. CARB 

reports that the Station Fire in August 

2009 destroyed the SAGA monitor that 

represents San Gabriel Wilderness Area 

and Cucamonga Wilderness Area. For 

this reason, the current conditions on 

the worst days for the SAGA monitor 

are based on 2005 to 2008, instead of 

2007 to 2011. However, the monitoring 

site was reestablished in October 2011. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirement in 

40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) to review its 

visibility monitoring strategy and make 

any modifications as necessary. We 

agree that there is no need to modify 

California’s monitoring network for 

measuring visibility at this time. 

G. Determination of Adequacy 

1. CARB’s Determination 

CARB has determined that no 

substantive revision of the RH SIP is 

warranted at this time in order to 

achieve the RPGs for visibility 

improvement by 2018. Visibility trends 

for the worst days show improvement at 

every monitor except for the three 

monitors (LAVO, BLIS, and REDW) 

influenced by years with wildfires. 

Further, current visibility conditions on 

best days (2007 to 2011) at all monitors 

are better than the baseline period. 

Based on reductions in anthropogenic 

sources of emissions in California and 

the concurrent improvement in 

visibility at all of California’s Class I 

area monitors, CARB determines that 

the current RH SIP strategies are 

sufficient to enable California and its 

neighboring states to meet their RPGs 

for 2018. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB 

adequately addresses the requirements 

in 40 CFR 51.308(h) by determining that 

the existing California RH SIP requires 

no substantive revisions at this time to 

achieve the established RPGs at Class I 

areas affected by the State’s sources. 

EPA concurs with the State’s 

determination based on the analysis and 

documentation presented in the 

Progress Report. The Report provides 

evidence of declining emissions from 

anthropogenic sources within the State’s 

control and improving visibility on 

worst days at all the monitors except 

when influenced by wildfires. Visibility 

on best days is also improving at all 

monitors, which are already meeting the 

RPGs for the best days. 

H. Consultation With Federal Land 

Managers 

1. CARB’s Consultation 

CARB conducted timely outreach in 

January 2014 to the FLMs including the 

U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and 

the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), which 

manage the national parks and wildlife 

areas in California. The NPS responded 

in a letter dated March 27, 2014, that 

agreed with CARB’s conclusion that 

emission reductions are sufficient to 

meet the RPGs for 2018, and offered 

suggestions to strengthen the Report. 

The USFS responded in a letter dated 

April 8, 2014, that CARB has 

demonstrated it is on a technically 

sound path for improving visibility in 

Class I areas. CARB’s responses to the 

comments from NPS and USFS are 

included in Appendix E of the Report. 

CARB has submitted to EPA a Public 

Notice and Hearing Transcript along 

with a certified copy of Air Resources 

Board Resolution 14–15 dated May 22, 

2014, the date of the public hearing at 

which the Board approved the Progress 

Report. Resolution 14–15 certifies that 

CARB provided a copy of the draft 

Progress Report to the FLMs on January 

28, 2014, and on March 11, 2014, held 

a conference call to discuss the draft 

Report. In the response to comments, 

CARB commits to continuing policy 

discussions through the regular Air and 

Land Mangers meetings held between 

the State and FLMs. 

2. EPA’s Evaluation 

EPA proposes to find that CARB has 

addressed the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(2), (3), and (4) to provide 

FLMs with an opportunity for 

consultation in person and at least 60 

days prior to a public hearing on the SIP 

revision; include a description in the 

SIP revision of how it addressed any 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 188 / Monday, September 29, 2014 / Proposed Rules 58309 

19 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

comments from the FLMs; and provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the State and FLMs. 

VI. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

California Regional Haze Plan 2014 

Progress Report submitted to EPA on 

June 16, 2014, as meeting the applicable 

RHR requirements as set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(g), (h), and (i). 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal 

regulations.19 Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

state decisions, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 

this proposed action is to approve 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 CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Organic carbon, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Visibility, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: September 17, 2014. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2014–23101 Filed 9–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2014–0713; FRL–9917–20– 

Region–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to Administrative 

Rules of Montana—Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Montana on June 4, 2013. This SIP 

revision revises the Administrative 

Rules of Montana that pertain to the 

issuance of Montana air quality permits. 

The June 4, 2013 revisions contain 

amended and renumbered rules. In this 

proposed rulemaking, we are taking 

action on portions of the June 4, 2013 

submittal. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 29, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2014–0713, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: leone.kevin@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2014– 

0713. 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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http://

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

For additional instructions on 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS