Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 25775 

1SCAQMD implements a combined Title I 

preconstruction and Title V operating permit 

program. 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds, Incorporation by 

reference. 

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

Dated: December 15, 2009. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart G—Colorado 

■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by 

revising (c)(114) to read as follows: 

§ 52.320 Identification of Plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(114) On August 1, 2007, the State of 

Colorado submitted revisions to 

Colorado Regulation 1 to be 

incorporated into the Colorado SIP. The 

submittal revises Section I.I.I.B.2. by 

adding ‘‘and air curtain destructors 

subject to 40 CFR 60’’ to the first 

sentence of Section I.I.I.B.2. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) 5 CCR 1001–3, Code of Colorado 

Regulations, Regulation Number 1, 

Emission Control for Particulates, 

Smokes, Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur 

Oxides, PARTICULATE MATTER, 

Section III.B.2, ‘‘Incinerators,’’ effective 

on November 30, 2006. Published in 

Colorado Register, Volume 29, Number 

11. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–10568 Filed 5–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0573; FRL–9146–5] 

Disapproval of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing disapproval 

of a revision to the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on September 8, 2009 and 

concerns volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from polymeric foam 

manufacturing operations. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action identifies several deficiencies in 

SCAQMD Rule 1175. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on June 9, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0573 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, Steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 8, 2009 (74 FR 46044), 

EPA proposed to disapprove the 

following rule that was submitted for 

incorporation into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule 

Number Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ................ 1175 Control of Emissions from the Manufacturing of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products.09/07/07 03/07/08 

We proposed to disapprove this rule 

because some rule provisions do not 

satisfy the requirements of section 110 

and part D of the Act. These provisions 

include the following: 

A. The rule must require 

demonstration, through source testing 

approved in writing by the Executive 

Officer, that the systems and techniques 

in place at a facility achieve 93% 

collection and reduction of emissions 

for sources complying with paragraph 

(c)(4)(B)(iii). 

B. The rule must clarify that all 

operational techniques and parameters 

needed to achieve 93% control to 

comply with paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii) 

must be clearly defined and enforceable 

through a federally enforceable permit 

such as a Title V operating permit.1 Rule 

1175 should also be revised where 

possible to identify these parameters. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
25776 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

C. The rule must clarify that all 

operational techniques and parameters 

needed to achieve 90% collection and 

95% destruction to comply with 

paragraphs (c)(4)(B)(i) and (ii) must be 

clearly defined and enforceable through 

a federally enforceable permit such as a 

Title V operating permit. Rule 1175 

should also be revised where possible to 

identify these parameters. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following parties. 

A. Shawn Osler, Environmental 

Compliance Manager, Insulfoam LLC, to 

Andrew Steckel, EPA, letter dated 

October 7, 2009. 

B. Laki Tisopulos, Assistant Deputy 

Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Andrew 

Steckel, EPA, letter dated October 8, 

2009. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: Insulfoam commented 

that EPA should reassess the proposed 

disapproval because the identified rule 

deficiencies are already adequately 

addressed by requirements in a Title V 

permit reviewed by EPA for the only 

facility affected by EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of Rule 1175. Any changes 

to this permit would also require EPA 

review. 

Response #1: This comment could be 

logically extended to suggest that no 

industry-specific rules are needed in 

SIPs as long as the state/local agency 

has an adequate permit program. 

However, EPA has long interpreted CAA 

Section 110(a)(2)(A) to require 

enforceable requirements in SIPapproved regulations, and not just rely 

on permits. 

Comment #2: EPA should also 

reassess the proposed disapproval 

because recent SIP approvals within 

Region 9 indicate that EPA has not 

required analogous provisions as a 

condition of approval for all similar 

rules. 

Response #2: The primary provision 

at issue in SCAQMD Rule 1175 requires 

93% emission capture and control. 

Other SIP-approved stationary source 

rules that establish analogous emission 

capture and control requirements 

generally require both: (a) An initial 

compliance test to demonstrate the 

control efficiency, and (b) ongoing 

monitoring to demonstrate that key 

parameters (e.g., temperature of 

afterburner) are maintained consistent 

with the conditions demonstrated 

during the successful source test. The 

deficiencies identified by EPA’s 

proposed disapproval are unusual 

because Rule 1175 fails to require either 

initial compliance testing or sufficient 

ongoing monitoring. We also note that 

the comment does not identify any 

specific inconsistent SIP approvals. 

Comment #3: At a minimum, EPA 

should consider partial or conditional 

approval of Rule 1175 instead of full 

disapproval. 

Response #3: Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. 

Gorsuch (742 F. Second 1028 Seventh 

Circuit, 1984) limits EPA’s ability to 

publish partial approvals. If we could 

partially approve Rule 1175, we would 

likely need to exclude the new 93% 

compliance option that is the primary 

subject of our proposed limited 

disapproval which would have the same 

effect as our full disapproval action as 

proposed. See Response #7 below 

regarding conditional approvals. 

Comment #4: SCAQMD commented 

that the pre-September 7, 2007 version 

of Rule 1175 has served as a model to 

the rest of the country and has been 

approved into the SIP without any of 

the issues raised by EPA. 

Response #4: We agree with the 

comment and acknowledge SCAQMD’s 

leadership in regulating this industry. 

We note that: (a) The issues we have 

identified as deficiencies are largely 

raised by the September 7, 2007 

revisions; and (b) our disapproval of the 

September 7, 2007 version would retain 

the previous version in the SIP, which 

has served as a model rule. 

Comment #5: The September 7, 2007 

amendment further improves the 

efficacy of the rule by providing the one 

block foam manufacturer in South Coast 

with an environmentally superior 

alternative compliance option. 

Response #5: The deficiencies 

identified in our proposed disapproval 

largely address our concerns that the 

new alternative compliance option, as 

described in the rule, is not adequately 

enforceable. 

Comment #6: The revisions suggested 

by EPA are not necessary and of limited 

usefulness at best because SCAQMD 

already includes permit conditions 

establishing the required parameters 

and source testing as EPA requested. 

Response #6: See Response #1. 

Comment #7: If EPA declines to fully 

approve the rule, SCAQMD prefers a 

conditional approval pursuant to CAA 

Section 110(k)(4) in lieu of the proposed 

disapproval. 

Response #7: The State has not 

fulfilled the requirements of CAA 

Section 100(k)(4) for a conditional 

approval, which include a commitment 

from the State to adopt specific 

enforceable measures by a certain date. 

Comment #8: Prompt approval of Rule 

1175 will expedite implementation by 

the one affected facility of the 

environmentally superior alternative 

compliance option provided in 

paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii). 

Response #8: While we are not 

opining on whether paragraph 

(c)(4)(B)(iii) provides an 

environmentally superior alternative 

compliance option, we do not believe 

that this and related paragraphs in Rule 

1175 are fully enforceable as discussed 

in our proposed action and required by 

CAA Section 110(a). 

Comment #9: AQMD staff will be 

prepared to develop an administrative 

amendment that would explicitly 

require source testing and permits be 

obtained by any impacted facility. 

Response #9: We believe such a rule 

amendment would address the 

deficiencies identified in our proposal 

and we look forward to working with 

SCAQMD on specific rule text. See also 

Response #7 above. 

Comment #10: AQMD staff would 

object to the notion that specific 

parameters be identified in the rule. To 

establish industry-wide operational 

parameters within the rule is 

impractical and that level of detail is 

best left to be identified during the 

permitting process. 

Response #10: We concur with this 

comment and believe it is consistent 

with our proposed action. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rule as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a 

full disapproval of the submitted rule. 

This action retains the existing SIP rule 

in the SIP. There are no sanction or FIP 

implications of this action pursuant to 

CAA Sections 179 or 110(c), as this is 

not a required CAA submittal. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 25777 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP disapprovals under 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act do not create any new 

requirements but simply disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because the 

Federal SIP approval does not create 

any new requirements, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into 

law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the 

disapproval action promulgated does 

not include a Federal mandate that may 

result in estimated costs of $100 million 

or more to either State, local, or tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This Federal action 

disapproves pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely disapproves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

disapproves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
25778 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 89 / Monday, May 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rulemaking. In reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove state choices, based on the 

criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

disapproves certain State requirements 

for inclusion into the SIP under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act and will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it 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. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

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 rule 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). This rule 

will be effective June 9, 2010. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 9, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: March 18, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.242 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(1)(iii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.242 Disapproved rules and 

regulations. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Rule 1175, ‘‘Control of Emissions 

from the Manufacturing of Polymeric 

Cellular (Foam) Products,’’ submitted on 

March 7, 2008 and adopted on 

September 7, 2007. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–10921 Filed 5–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0286; FRL–9138–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Yolo-Solano Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the YoloSolano Air Quality Management District 

(YSAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern oxides of nitrogen 

(NOx) emissions from natural gas-fired 

water heaters, small boilers and nitric 

acid production facilities. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 9, 

2010 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by June 9, 

2010. If we receive such comments, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that this direct final rule will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0286], by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments 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 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3248, perez.idalia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES