47264 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES—Continued 

Agency Citation Title State or local 

effective date Submitted 

Ecology .............. 173–433–100 ................................................ Emission performance standards ................. 03/06/93 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–110 ................................................ Opacity standards ........................................ 03/06/93 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–120 ................................................ Prohibited fuel types ..................................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–140 ................................................ Impaired air quality criteria ........................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

Ecology .............. 173–433–150 ................................................ Curtailment ................................................... 04/20/91 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.3 (only as it applies to the cities of 

Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater).

No residential or land clearing burning ........ 02/04/12 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.6 .............................................................. Curtailment ................................................... 03/18/11 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 6.2.7 .............................................................. Recreational Burning .................................... 03/18/11 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.1 .............................................................. Definitions ..................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.2 (b) and (c) ........................................... General emission standards ........................ 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.3 .............................................................. Prohibited fuel types ..................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.4 .............................................................. Curtailment ................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.5 .............................................................. Exceptions .................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.6 .............................................................. Penalties ....................................................... 05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.7 .............................................................. Sale and installation of uncertified 

woodstoves.

05/22/10 07/01/13 

ORCAA .............. 8.1.8 .............................................................. Disposal of uncertified woodstoves .............. 05/22/10 07/01/13 

VII. Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to approve the 

second 10-year limited maintenance 

plan for Thurston County submitted by 

Washington State. The state’s submittal 

also included a request to approve state 

regulatory updates to the original 

control measures included in Chapter 

173–433 WAC as well as corresponding 

local ORCAA regulations. The EPA is 

proposing to approve these regulatory 

changes as well as corrections to the 

EPA’s January 1993 approval because 

these changes strengthen the SIP. 

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to the 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 the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. The 

SIP is not approved to apply in Indian 

country located in the State, except for 

non-trust land within the exterior 

boundaries of the Puyallup Indian 

Reservation, also known as the 1873 

Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe 

of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 

U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly 

provided state and local agencies in 

Washington authority over activities on 

non-trust lands within the 1873 Survey 

Area and the EPA is therefore approving 

this SIP on such lands. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Particulate matter, and 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: July 22, 2013. 

Dennis J. McLerran, 

Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18843 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510; FRL–9841–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). Whenever new 

or revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) are promulgated, 

the CAA requires states to submit a plan 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47265 

for the implementation, maintenance, 

and enforcement of such NAAQS. The 

plan is required to address basic 

program elements, including, but not 

limited to regulatory structure, 

monitoring, modeling, legal authority, 

and adequate resources necessary to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the standards. These elements are 

referred to as infrastructure 

requirements. The Commonwealth of 

Virginia has made a submittal 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 nitrogen 

dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before September 4, 

2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0510 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. Email: fernandez.cristina@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, Air 

Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP30, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0510. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during normal business 

hours at the Air Protection Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality, 629 East Main 

Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ellen Schmitt, (215) 814–5787, or by 

email at schmitt.ellen@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

30, 2013, the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality (VADEQ) 

submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy 

the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

I. Background 

EPA first set standards for NO2 in 

1971, setting both a primary standard (to 

protect health) and a secondary 

standard (to protect the public welfare) 

at 53 parts per billion (53 ppb), averaged 

annually. EPA has reviewed the 

standards twice since that time, but 

chose not to revise the annual standards 

at the conclusion of each review. On 

February 9, 2010, EPA established an 

additional primary NO2 standard at 100 

ppb, averaged over one hour. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit SIPs to provide for the 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of a new or revised 

NAAQS. Specifically, 110(a)(1) requires 

states to submit SIPs meeting the 

applicable requirements of section 

110(a)(2) within three years following 

the promulgation of such NAAQS, or 

within such shorter period as EPA may 

prescribe, and section 110(a)(2) requires 

states to address specific elements for 

monitoring, basic program requirements 

and legal authority that are designed to 

assure attainment and maintenance of 

the newly established or revised 

NAAQS. 

The contents of a submission may 

vary depending upon the facts and 

circumstances. In particular, the data 

and analytical tools available at the time 

the state develops and submits the SIP 

for a new or revised NAAQS affects the 

content of the submission. The contents 

of such SIP submissions may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. 

States were required to submit such 

SIPs for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS to EPA 

no later than January 2013. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

On May 30, 2013, VADEQ provided a 

SIP revision to satisfy the requirements 

of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. This revision 

addresses the following infrastructure 

elements, which EPA is proposing to 

approve: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) 

(for enforcement and regulation of 

minor sources and minor 

modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility 

protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), 

(G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions 

thereof. EPA is taking separate action on 

the portions of section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) as they relate to 

Virginia’s prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD) program and on 

section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to 

section 128 (State Boards). This action 

does not include any proposed action 

on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which 

pertains to the nonattainment 

requirements of part D, Title I of the 

CAA, because this element is not 

required to be submitted by the 3-year 

submission deadline of CAA section 

110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a 

separate process. 

Also, in accordance with the EME 

Homer City decision from the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit, a state is not 

required to submit a SIP pursuant to 

section 110(a) which addresses section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) until EPA has defined 

a state’s contribution to nonattainment 

or interference with maintenance in 

another state. See EME Homer City 

Generation, LP v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (DC 

Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 2013 U.S. 

LEXIS 4801 (2013). Unless the EME 

Homer City decision is reversed or 

otherwise modified by the Supreme 

Court, states such as Virginia are not 

required to submit section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs until the EPA has 

quantified their obligations under that 

section. Virginia’s May 30, 2013 

infrastructure SIP submission for the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
47266 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

2010 NO2 NAAQS does not include a 

component to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Therefore, in this 

action, EPA is not proposing to act on 

the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion of 

Virginia’s May 30, 2013 SIP submission 

for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. A detailed 

summary of EPA’s review and rationale 

for approving Virginia’s submittal may 

be found in the Technical Support 

Document (TSD) for this proposed 

rulemaking action, which is available 

online at www.regulations.gov, Docket 

number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0510. 

III. General Information Pertaining to 

SIP Submittals From the 

Commonwealth of Virginia 

In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation 

that provides, subject to certain 

conditions, for an environmental 

assessment (audit) ‘‘privilege’’ for 

voluntary compliance evaluations 

performed by a regulated entity. The 

legislation further addresses the relative 

burden of proof for parties either 

asserting the privilege or seeking 

disclosure of documents for which the 

privilege is claimed. Virginia’s 

legislation also provides, subject to 

certain conditions, for a penalty waiver 

for violations of environmental laws 

when a regulated entity discovers such 

violations pursuant to a voluntary 

compliance evaluation and voluntarily 

discloses such violations to the 

Commonwealth and takes prompt and 

appropriate measures to remedy the 

violations. Virginia’s Voluntary 

Environmental Assessment Privilege 

Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, provides 

a privilege that protects from disclosure 

documents and information about the 

content of those documents that are the 

product of a voluntary environmental 

assessment. The Privilege Law does not 

extend to documents or information 

that: (1) Are generated or developed 

before the commencement of a 

voluntary environmental assessment; (2) 

are prepared independently of the 

assessment process; (3) demonstrate a 

clear, imminent and substantial danger 

to the public health or environment; or 

(4) are required by law. 

On January 12, 1998, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the 

Attorney General provided a legal 

opinion that states that the Privilege 

law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1–1198, precludes 

granting a privilege to documents and 

information ‘‘required by law,’’ 

including documents and information 

‘‘required by Federal law to maintain 

program delegation, authorization or 

approval,’’ since Virginia must ‘‘enforce 

Federally authorized environmental 

programs in a manner that is no less 

stringent than their Federal 

counterparts. . . .’’ The opinion 

concludes that ‘‘[r]egarding § 10.1–1198, 

therefore, documents or other 

information needed for civil or criminal 

enforcement under one of these 

programs could not be privileged 

because such documents and 

information are essential to pursuing 

enforcement in a manner required by 

Federal law to maintain program 

delegation, authorization or approval.’’ 

Virginia’s Immunity law, Va. Code 

Sec. 10.1–1199, provides that ‘‘[t]o the 

extent consistent with requirements 

imposed by Federal law,’’ any person 

making a voluntary disclosure of 

information to a state agency regarding 

a violation of an environmental statute, 

regulation, permit, or administrative 

order is granted immunity from 

administrative or civil penalty. The 

Attorney General’s January 12, 1998 

opinion states that the quoted language 

renders this statute inapplicable to 

enforcement of any Federally authorized 

programs, since ‘‘no immunity could be 

afforded from administrative, civil, or 

criminal penalties because granting 

such immunity would not be consistent 

with Federal law, which is one of the 

criteria for immunity.’’ 

Therefore, EPA has determined that 

Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity 

statutes will not preclude the 

Commonwealth from enforcing its PSD, 

NSR, or Title V programs consistent 

with the Federal requirements. In any 

event, because EPA has also determined 

that a state audit privilege and 

immunity law can affect only state 

enforcement and cannot have any 

impact on Federal enforcement 

authorities, EPA may at any time invoke 

its authority under the CAA, including, 

for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 

or 213, to enforce the requirements or 

prohibitions of the state plan, 

independently of any state enforcement 

effort. In addition, citizen enforcement 

under section 304 of the CAA is 

likewise unaffected by this, or any, state 

audit privilege or immunity law. 

IV. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following infrastructure elements or 

portions thereof of Virginia’s May 30, 

2013 SIP revision: Section 110(a)(2)(A), 

(B), (C) (for enforcement and regulation 

of minor sources and minor 

modifications), (D)(i)(II) (for visibility 

protection), (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(iii), (F), 

(G), (H), (J) (relating to consultation, 

public notification, and visibility 

protection requirements), (K), (L), and 

(M). Virginia’s SIP revision provides the 

basic program elements specified in 

section 110(a)(2) necessary to 

implement, maintain, and enforce the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS. This action does not 

include any proposed action on section 

110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertains 

to the nonattainment requirements of 

part D, Title I of the CAA, since this 

element is not required to be submitted 

by the 3-year submission deadline of 

CAA section 110(a)(1), and will be 

addressed in a separate process. EPA is 

not taking proposed action on section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA, because 

this element, or portions thereof, is not 

presently required to be submitted by a 

state until the EPA has quantified a 

state’s obligations under that section. 

EPA is taking separate action on the 

portions of (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) as they 

relate to Virginia’s PSD program, and on 

(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128 (State 

Boards). EPA is soliciting public 

comments on the issues discussed in 

this document. These comments will be 

considered before taking final action. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this 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); 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 150 / Monday, August 5, 2013 / Proposed Rules 47267 

• 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 proposed rule, which 

satisfies certain infrastructure 

requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS for the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: July 19, 2013. 

Shawn M. Garvin, 

Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2013–18705 Filed 8–2–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000–0003; FRL–9842–8] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Imperial Refining Company 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Imperial 

Refining Co. Superfund Site (Site) 

located in Ardmore, Oklahoma, from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) and 

requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and 

the State of Oklahoma, through the 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality, have determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA, other than operation, 

maintenance, and five-year reviews, 

have been completed. However, this 

deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

September 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–2000–0003, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: mueller.brian@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 214–665–6660. 

• Mail: Brian W. Mueller; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; Superfund Division (6SF–RA); 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; Dallas, 

Texas 75202–7167. 

• Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6; 1445 Ross 

Avenue, Suite 700; Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733; Contact: Brian W. Mueller (214) 

665–7167. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–2000– 

0003. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

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

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means 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, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

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

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statue. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6; 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

700; Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Hours 

of operation: Monday through Friday, 

9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. Contact: Brian W. 

Mueller (214) 665–7167. 

Ardmore Public Library; 320 E Street 

NW.; Ardmore, Oklahoma 73401. 

Hours of Operation: Monday through 

Thursday 10:00 a.m. until 8:30 p.m.; 

Friday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. 

until 4:00 p.m.; Sunday 1:00 p.m. 

until 5:00 p.m. 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental 

Quality; 707 N Robinson, 2nd floor, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102. 

Hours of operation: Monday through 

Friday 8:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian W. Mueller, Remedial Project 

Manager; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6; Superfund Division 

(6SF–R); 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200; 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, (214) 665– 

7167, email: mueller.brian@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Deletion of Imperial Refining Co. 

Superfund Site without prior Notice of 

Intent to Delete because we view this as 

a noncontroversial revision and 

anticipate no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

deletion in the preamble to the direct 

final Notice of Deletion, and those 

reasons are incorporated herein. If we 

receive no adverse comment(s) on this 

deletion action, we will not take further 

action on this Notice of Intent to Delete. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS