Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21717

the standard. For example, a standard

level of 0.12 ppm means that

measurements are to be rounded to two

decimal places (0.005 rounds up to

0.01). Thus, 0.125 ppm is the smallest

concentration value in excess of the

level of the ozone standard.

Final Action

EPA is approving Kentucky’s request

to exempt the Kentucky portion of the

Huntington-Ashland area moderate O3

nonattainment area from the section

182(f) NOX RACT requirement. This

approval is based upon the evidence

provided by Kentucky and the

Commonwealth’s compliance with the

requirements outlined in the applicable

EPA guidance. If a violation of the O3

NAAQS occurs in the Kentucky portion

of the Huntington-Ashland area, the

exemption from the NOX RACT

requirement of section 182(f) of the CAA

in the applicable area shall no longer

apply. This action will be effective June

2, 1995.

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

42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for

judicial review of this action must be

filed in the United States Court of

Appeals for the appropriate circuit by

July 3, 1995. Filing a petition for

reconsideration by the Administrator of

this final rule does not affect the finality

of this rule for 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) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b)(2)).

The OMB has exempted these actions

from review under Executive Order

12866.

This action is not a SIP revision and

is not subject to the requirements of

section 110 of the CAA. The authority

to approve or disapprove exemptions

from NOX requirements under section

182 of the CAA was delegated to the

Regional Administrator from the

Administrator in a memo dated July 6,

1994, from Jonathan Cannon, Assistant

Administrator, to the Administrator,

titled, ‘‘Proposed Delegation of

Authority: ‘Exemptions from Nitrogen

Oxide Requirements Under Clean Air

Act Section 182(f) and Related

Provisions of the Transportation and

General Conformity Rules’—Decision

Memorandum.’’

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000. This rule approves an

exemption from a CAA requirement.

Therefore, I certify that it does not have

a significant impact on any small

entities affected.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Carbon

monoxide, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Lead,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides.

Dated: April 17, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter 1, 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart II—Kentucky

2. Section 52.937 is added to read as

follows:

§ 52.937 Review of new sources and

modifications.

(a) Approval—EPA is approving the

section 182(f) oxides of nitrogen (NOX)

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) exemption request submitted by

the Kentucky Department for

Environmental Protection on August 16,

1994, for the Kentucky portion of the

Huntington-Ashland ozone (O3)

moderate nonattainment area. This

approval exempts this area from

implementing NOX RACT on major

sources of NOX. If a violation of the O3

NAAQS occurs in the area, the

exemption from the requirement of

section 182(f) of the CAA in the

applicable area shall not apply.

(b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 95–10826 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IN44–1–6538a; FRL–5190–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On March 23, 1994, the State

of Indiana requested a revision to the

Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP)

for lead, in accordance with part D, title

I requirements of the Clean Air Act (the

Act) for the Marion County lead

nonattainment area. Supplemental

information was received on September

21, 1994. The submittal provides for the

control of both stack and fugitive

emissions by requiring, among other

things, revised emission limitations,

improved monitoring, building

enclosures, an amended fugitive lead

dust plan, and contingency measures in

the event that subsequent violations of

the lead National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) occur. USEPA made

a finding of completeness in a letter

dated September 23, 1994. Therefore,

because the submittal contains all the

necessary elements under part D,

USEPA is approving it. In the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register,

USEPA is proposing approval of and

soliciting public comment on this

requested SIP revision. If adverse

comments are received on this action,

USEPA will withdraw this final rule

and address the comments received in

response to this action in a final rule on

the related proposed rule which is being

published in the proposed rules section

of this Federal Register. A second

public comment period will not be held.

Parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July

3, 1995 unless an adverse comment is

received by June 2, 1995. If the effective

date of this action is delayed due to

adverse comments, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section,

Regulation Development Branch (AR–

18J), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Copies of the

SIP revision request and USEPA’s

analysis are available for inspection at

the following address: U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division

(AR–18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151,

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rosanne Lindsay at (312) 353–1151.
21718 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1USEPA approved the Indiana lead SIP called for

in response to the issuance of lead NAAQS and

subject to the requirements of then section 110 of

the Act [see Title IAC 326 15–1 on April 10, 1988

(53 FR 12896) and October 3, 1988 (53 FR 38719)].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background/History

In a final rule published on November

6, 1991, USEPA announced that a

portion of Marion County, Indiana was

being designated nonattainment for lead

under section 107(d)(5) of the Clean Air

Act (the Act), based on violations of the

lead NAAQS monitored in 1990 in the

vicinity of the Refined Metals facility in

Marion County [See, 56 FR 56694

(codified at 40 CFR 81.315)]. The lead

nonattainment designation for this area

became effective on January 6, 1992.

Section 191(a) of the Act requires that

States containing areas designated

nonattainment for lead submit a SIP

meeting the requirements of part D, title

I of the Act within 18 months of the

nonattainment designation. On February

4, 1992, Indiana submitted to the

USEPA a site-specific revision request

to the lead implementation plan

addressing the 1990 lead NAAQS

violations. Because the revision request

did not satisfy all part D, title I,

requirements, on July 12, 1993, USEPA

proposed a limited approval/limited

disapproval (58 FR 37450). On

September 23, 1993, Indiana officially

withdrew the SIP submittal. On March

23, 1994, the State submitted a revised

rule which forms the basis for this

rulemaking. The State supplemented the

submittal on September 21, 1994, and

USEPA deemed the submittal complete

on September 23, 1994. Finally, on

January 24, 1995, Indiana submitted

contingency measures in an operating

permit which underwent a public

hearing.

Section 192(a) further provides that

each lead SIP must provide for

attainment of the lead NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than 5 years from the date of the

nonattainment designation. Among

other things, the part D, title I

requirements include: implementation

of all reasonably available control

measures (RACM), including reasonably

available control technology (RACT);

demonstration of reasonable further

progress (RFP); a comprehensive,

accurate and current inventory of all

sources of lead in the nonattainment

area; a new source review (NSR)

program meeting the requirements of

section 173 of the Act (i.e., require

permits for construction and operation

permits for new or modified major

stationary sources of lead in the

nonattainment area); enforceable

emission limits, timetables and

schedules for compliance; the

applicable requirements of section

110(a)(2); and provisions for the

implementation of specific measures

(contingency measures) upon a

determination by USEPA that the

nonattainment area fails to make RFP or

meet the NAAQS by the applicable date

(See, sections 172(c), 173 and 171 of the

Act). USEPA provided the States with

guidance on SIP requirements for lead

nonattainment areas in the April 16,

1992, General Preamble for the

Implementation of Title I of the Act of

1990 (See, 57 FR 13498; See also, 57 FR

18070, April 28, 1992), and in a

December 22, 1993, Addendum to the

General Preamble (See, 58 FR 67748).

The State’s February 4, 1992, submittal,

as well as the final submittal, are

available for inspection at the USEPA

Region 5 Office.1

II. Identification of Review Criteria

USEPA has evaluated the revisions to

Indiana’s lead SIP for consistency with

the requirements of sections 191(a) and

192(a) of the Act, and other applicable

federal requirements. Additional

guidance documents containing USEPA

policy include: the April 23 and June

24, 1992, Questions and Answers for

Lead, prepared by the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards

(OAQPS); the April 16, 1992, General

Preamble (See, 57 FR 13498; See also,

57 FR 18070, April 28, 1992); and the

December 22, 1993, Addendum to the

General Preamble (See, 58 FR 67748).

III. USEPA Review and Findings

A. Review of Submittal Applicable to

Portion of Marion County Designated

Nonattainment for Lead

This revision request provides for the

control of both stack and fugitive

emissions by requiring revised emission

limitations, a new baghouse and stack,

and a total enclosure of the buildings

housing the sources considered to be

responsible for the monitored violations

(i.e., blast furnace, dust furnaces,

material storage building). The emission

limits for the new and existing baghouse

stacks are summarized below:

BAGHOUSE STACK LIMITS

Baghouse stack Old limit

(lb/hr)

New limit

(lb/hr)

M–1 ................... 1.132 0.91

M–2 ................... .015 .15

M–3 ................... .005 .15

M–4 ................... ................... .30

In addition to the above limitations,

and a fugitive lead dust control plan, the

site-specific lead rule (Title 326 IAC 15–

1–2, sections 2(1)(A) to 2(1)(I)) contains

the following provisions to mitigate the

release of lead fugitive emissions to the

atmosphere: (1) the installation and

operation of several hooding systems in

several areas of the facility; (2)

enclosure of the screw conveyors used

to transport lead dust; (3) a three (3)

percent opacity limit for all building

openings; (4) a five (5) percent opacity

limit for each stack; (5) a continuous

monitoring system to ensure negative

pressure inside the affected buildings,

use of continuous opacity monitors

(COMs) for stacks M–1 and M–4; (6)

initial certification of COMs; (7)

quarterly excess emission reporting of

COM data and quality assurance reports;

(8) stack testing of all stacks; and

authority by the State to require the

cessation in production, if necessary, to

ensure attainment of the lead NAAQS

(See January 12, 1995, operating permit

provisions). Compliance with these

provisions is to be achieved no later

than March 1, 1994, with the exception

of the operating permit provisions,

which are effective from January 12,

1995 through January 31, 1998.

B. Review of SIP Submittal

The following summary describes

how Indiana addresses the part D, title

I requirements of the Act:

Section 172(c)(1) calls for the

implementation of RACM and RACT.

Indiana has satisfied the requirement for

RACM and RACT through emission

limitations on the baghouse stacks, the

maintenance of the buildings under

negative pressure, and monitoring

requirements. An amended fugitive lead

dust plan, which mirrors an Agreed

Order between the State and the source,

further reduces lead emissions through

operation and maintenance practices. A

sampling survey of lead dust conducted

on facility grounds also provided the

State with new information needed for

accurate inputs to air quality modeling.

In modeling the ambient air quality at

Refined Metals, IDEM first evaluated the

performance of the Industrial Source

Complex Long Term model (ISCLT2)

against the performance of the Fugitive

Dust Model (FGM), to determine which

model would best characterize the air

quality in the area. ISCLT2 predicted

lead concentrations which more closely

matched the monitored lead

concentrations for the area. Therefore,

ISCLT2 was used in the attainment

demonstration for this SIP revision.

The Refined Metals facility’s lead

emission points include point, area, and

volume sources. Building downwash

effects were considered for the elevated

point sources. Roadway dust, which has
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21719

2Pursuant to USEPA’s approval of the Indiana

SIP, the State is required to submit approvable

source-specific fugitive lead dust control plans as

revisions to the SIP. Fugitive dust control plans for

9 sources were disapproved in a rulemaking action

on February 1, 1993 (58 FR 6606). State plans for

these sources, excluding Refined Metals, are still

required to be submitted to USEPA.

been found to contain a large percentage

of lead particles, makes up a significant

portion of the area’s ambient air lead

concentration. The roadway lead

emissions were modeled as a series of

area sources. The Refined Metals

implementation plan calls for measures

to limit the amount of lead-containing

dust allowed to accumulate on truck

tires and leave the plant vicinity. The

facility would also be enclosed to

prevent additional buildup of dust on

the roadways. Indiana used the

assumption that the dust mass and the

percentage of lead in that dust would be

reduced by 90 percent using the

planned control measures. The

background lead concentration was

calculated from monitored data to be

0.14 μg/m3. This concentration was

added to the modeled concentrations to

demonstrate attainment. The maximum

quarterly average lead concentration

was 0.66 μg/m3, which included

background totals 0.80 μg/m3. This is

below the lead NAAQS of 1.5 μg/m3.

Section 172(c)(2) requires RFP goals

to be met. Indiana maintains that linear

progression toward attainment is, in this

case, inappropriate due to the fact that

Refined Metals is the sole source of lead

NAAQS violations. Instead, the State

contends that compliance with the

emission limitations, provisions of the

lead rule and a modified fugitive lead

dust control plan will result in

immediate attainment of the lead

NAAQS in Marion County. This is

acceptable to USEPA.

Section 172(c)(3) requires a complete,

comprehensive, accurate and current

inventory of the nonattainment area.

Completed in April of 1994, the

inventory adequately demonstrates that

Refined Metals is the only significant

source of lead emissions in the lead

nonattainment area.

Section 172(c)(4) requires the

identification and quantification of any

pollutant which will be allowed from

the construction and operation of major

new or modified major sources for such

area, in accordance with section

173(a)(1)(B) (targets economic

development zones). Indiana states that

Marion County is not currently and does

not expect to become a targeted

economic development zone. This is

acceptable to USEPA.

Section 172(c)(5) requires an

approved NSR program to be in place in

the nonattainment area. USEPA

approved Indiana’s emission offset rules

on October 7, 1994 (326 IAC 2–3; 59 FR

51108). The rules, which became

effective on December 6, 1994, satisfy

this requirement.

Section 172(c)(6) requires enforceable

emission limitations, schedules, and

timetables for compliance. USEPA finds

that the site-specific lead rule subject to

this rulemaking, effective April 27,

1994, fulfills these requirements

because the source is subject to clear

emission limits, averaging times,

compliance dates, continuous

compliance, recordkeeping and

reporting requirements, and appropriate

testing methods to determine

compliance.

Section 172(c)(7) requires compliance

with section 110(a)(2) of the Act.

Indiana has met these requirements

through the existing State air quality

rules and this SIP submittal.

Section 172(c)(8) allows the State to

use equivalent techniques for modeling,

emission inventory, or planning

procedures. Indiana believes these

alternatives not to be applicable to this

submittal. This is acceptable to USEPA.

Section 172(c)(9) requires inclusion of

provisions for the implementation of

contingency measures if the area fails to

meet RFP or attainment of the lead

NAAQS by the applicable date. Indiana

incorporated contingency measures into

an operating permit issued to Refined

Metals that was subject to public

comment and included in the SIP

submittal. The measures are triggered

upon notification by the local or State

agency that the air quality monitors in

the source’s vicinity have recorded a

violation of the lead NAAQS, or clearly

will record a violation when initial data

is averaged over the quarter. These

measures include: a cessation of

operations until a corrective action plan

has been approved by the Local and

State agencies, an investigation by the

source into all possible causes of the

excessive lead concentrations, a final

report of the investigation and a

proposed plan for corrective measures

with a schedule, and timely

implementation of corrective measures.

The Local and State agencies can

approve, disapprove and/or request

additional information from the source.

Source operations can recommence

upon approval of the plan. The

operating permit has a lifetime of 5

years. In order for these contingency

measures to remain permanent and

federally enforceable, the permit must

be renewed upon each expiration with

the same contingency measures while

the area remains designated as

nonattainment. In meeting these

requirements, the State satisfies its

obligation for contingency measures.

USEPA also notes that the fugitive

lead dust control plan, required under

part D, title I of the Act, is satisfied by

this submittal.2 The newly modified

plan for Refined Metals reflects recent

changes required by an Agreed Order

between the State and Refined Metals.

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

USEPA is approving the March 23,

1994, SIP submittal because all of the

applicable Federal requirements under

section 110(a)(2) and part D, title I, of

the Act have been satisfied. The

submittal for Marion County also

satisfies the requirements of sections

191(a) and 192(a) of the Act by

providing for the necessary elements to

reach attainment of the lead NAAQS no

later than 5 years from the January 6,

1992, nonattainment designation.

The USEPA is publishing this action

without prior proposal because USEPA

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the USEPA is proposing to

approve the requested SIP revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. This action will be effective on

July 3, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 2, 1995.

If the USEPA receives such

comments, this action will be

withdrawn before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent rule that

withdraws this final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The USEPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective on July 3, 1995.

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October 4, 1993,

memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation. The Office of

Management and Budget has exempted

this regulatory action from Executive

Order 12866 review.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. USEPA
21720 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 3, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604.) Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Clean Air Act forbids USEPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. USEPA,

427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(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 3, 1995.

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, Incorporation by

reference, Lead.

Dated: April 3, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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 reads as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(95) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(95) On May 22, 1994, the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management submitted a request to

revise the Indiana State Implementation

Plan by adding a lead plan for Marion

County which consists of a source

specific revision to Title 326 of the

Indiana Administrative Code (326 IAC)

for Refined Metals.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Amendments to 326 IAC 15–1–2

Source-specific provisions. Filed with

the Secretary of State March 25, 1994.

Effective April 24, 1994. Published at

Indiana Register, Volume 17, Number 8,

May 1, 1994.

[FR Doc. 95–10810 Filed 5–2–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[AD–FRL–5200–7]

Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program for

Nineteen California Air Pollution

Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating

interim approval of the Operating

Permits Program submitted by the

California Air Resources Board on

behalf of Amador County Air Pollution

Control District (APCD), Butte County

APCD, Calaveras County APCD, Colusa

County APCD, El Dorado County APCD,

Feather River Air Quality Management

District (AQMD), Great Basin Unified

APCD, Imperial County APCD, Kern

County APCD, Lassen County APCD,

Mendocino County APCD, Modoc

County APCD, North Coast Unified

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer

County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,

Tuolumne County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD, California (districts) for

the purpose of complying with Federal

requirements for an approvable State

program to issue operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 2, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the nineteen

districts’ submittals and other

supporting information used in

developing the final interim approval

are available for inspection during

normal business hours at the following

location: Operating Permits Section, A–

5–2, Air and Toxics Division, U.S. EPARegion IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information, please contact: Sara

Bartholomew, Operating Permits

Section, A–5–2, Air and Toxics

Division, U.S. EPA-Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105, (415) 744–1170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act

Amendments (sections 501–507 of the

Clean Air Act (the Act)), and

implementing regulations at 40 Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70

require that States develop and submit

operating permits programs to EPA by

November 15, 1993, and that EPA act to

approve or disapprove each program

within 1 year after receiving the

submittal. The EPA’s program review

occurs pursuant to section 502 of the

Act and the part 70 regulations, which

together outline criteria for approval or

disapproval. Where a program

substantially, but not fully, meets the

requirements of part 70, EPA may grant

the program interim approval for a

period of up to 2 years. If EPA has not

fully approved a program by 2 years

after the November 15, 1993 date, or by

the end of an interim program, it must

establish and implement a Federal

program.

On December 8, 1994, EPA proposed

interim approval of the operating

permits programs for Amador County

APCD, Butte County APCD, Calaveras

County APCD, Colusa County APCD, El

Dorado County APCD, Feather River

AQMD, Great Basin Unified APCD,

Imperial County APCD, Kern County

APCD, Lassen County APCD,

Mendocino County APCD, Modoc

County APCD, North Coast Unified

AQMD, Northern Sierra AQMD,

Northern Sonoma County APCD, Placer

County APCD, Siskiyou County APCD,

Tuolumne County APCD, and YoloSolano AQMD, California. See 54 FR

63289. The EPA received public

comment on the proposal, and is

responding to those comments in this

document and in a separate ‘‘Response

to Comments’’ document that is