29142 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13211, Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have determined that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone of limited size and duration. This 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. An environmental analysis 

checklist supporting this determination 

and a Categorical Exclusion 

Determination are available in the 

docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, and 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR Part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add a new temporary § 165–T11– 

0054 to read as follows: 

§ 165–T11–0054 Safety Zone; Santa Cruz 

Wharf 100th Anniversary Fireworks Display 

(a) Location. This safety zone is 

established in the navigable waters near 

Santa Cruz Wharf in Santa Cruz, CA, as 

depicted in National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Chart 18685. The temporary safety zone 

will encompass the navigable waters 

around the fireworks launch site in 

approximate position 36°57′50′′ N, 

122°00′48′′ W (NAD 83) within a radius 

of 420 feet. 

(b) Enforcement period. The zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section will be enforced from 9 p.m. 

through 9:30 p.m. on October 4, 2014. 

The Captain of the Port San Francisco 

(COTP) will notify the maritime 

community of periods during which this 

zone will be enforced via Broadcast 

Notice to Mariners in accordance with 

33 CFR 165.7. 

(c) Definitions. As used in this 

section, ‘‘designated representative’’ 

means a Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander, including a Coast Guard 

coxswain, petty officer, or other officer 

on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, 

State, or local officer designated by or 

assisting the COTP in the enforcement 

of the safety zone. 

(d) Regulations. (1) Under the general 

regulations in 33 CFR Part 165, Subpart 

C, entry into, transiting or anchoring 

within this safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the COTP or a 

designated representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or a designated 

representative. 

(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone must 

contact the COTP or a designated 

representative to obtain permission to 

do so. Vessel operators given permission 

to enter or operate in the safety zone 

must comply with all directions given to 

them by the COTP or a designated 

representative. Persons and vessels may 

request permission to enter the safety 

zone on VHF–23A or through the 24- 

hour Command Center at telephone 

(415) 399–3547. 

Dated: April 29, 2014. 

Gregory G. Stump, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port San Francisco. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11791 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0211, EPA–R03– 

OAR–2013–0510]; FRL–9911–26–Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Section 110(a)(2) Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration Requirements 

for the 2008 Ozone and 2010 Nitrogen 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) 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 

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 two separate 

submittals addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone and 

2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS. 

This action proposes approval of the 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) portions of the infrastructure 

requirements of the CAA for the 

Commonwealth’s SIP submittals for the 

2008 ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before June 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2013–0211 for the 2008 

ozone docket and EPA–R03–OAR– 

2013–0510 for the 2010 NO2 docket 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–2013–0211 

and 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. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29143 

1For example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides 

that states must provide assurances that they have 

adequate legal authority under state and local law 

to carry out the SIP, section 110(a)(2)(C) provides 

that states must have a SIP-approved program to 

address certain sources as required by part C of title 

I of the CAA, and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that 

states must have legal authority to address 

emergencies as well as contingency plans that are 

triggered in the event of such emergencies. 

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 Nos. EPA–R03–OAR–2013– 

0211 and 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: 

I. Background 

On July 23, 2012, the Commonwealth 

of Virginia submitted a formal revision 

to its SIP addressing certain 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS (2008 ozone submittal). 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPR) on July 2, 2013 

which proposed approval of the 2008 

ozone submittal for the following 

infrastructure elements: 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), or portions thereof. See 78 

FR 39651. Subsequently, EPA published 

a Final Rulemaking Notice (FRN) on 

March 27, 2014 which approved the 

Virginia 2008 ozone submittal for those 

specific elements. See 79 FR 17043. 

On May 30, 2013, Virginia submitted 

an infrastructure SIP submission for the 

2010 NO2 NAAQS (2010 NO2

submittal). On August 5, 2013, EPA 

published a NPR which proposed 

approval of the 2010 NO2 submittal for 

the following infrastructure elements: 

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), or 

portions thereof. See 78 FR 47264. 

Subsequently, on March 18, 2014, EPA 

published a FRN which approved the 

Virginia 2010 NO2 submittal for those 

specific elements. See 79 FR 15012. 

In both EPA’s March 27, 2014 FRN for 

the 2008 ozone submittal and the March 

18, 2014 FRN for the 2010 NO2

submittal, EPA indicated that it was 

taking separate action on certain 

infrastructure elements as they relate to 

PSD and section 128 of the CAA. This 

rulemaking action proposes approval of 

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

infrastructure elements as they relate to 

Virginia’s PSD program for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

EPA will take later separate action on 

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

128. 

II. EPA’s Approach To Review 

Infrastructure SIPs 

The requirement for states to make a 

SIP submission of this type arises out of 

section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 

110(a)(1), states must make SIP 

submissions ‘‘within 3 years (or such 

shorter period as the Administrator may 

prescribe) after the promulgation of a 

national primary ambient air quality 

standard (or any revision thereof),’’ and 

these SIP submissions are to provide for 

the ‘‘implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The 

statute directly imposes on states the 

duty to make these SIP submissions, 

and the requirement to make the 

submissions is not conditioned upon 

EPA’s taking any action other than 

promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. 

Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of 

specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such 

plan’’ submission must address. 

EPA has historically referred to these 

SIP submissions made for the purpose 

of satisfying the requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) as ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ 

submissions. Although the term 

‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ does not appear in 

the CAA, EPA uses the term to 

distinguish this particular type of SIP 

submission from submissions that are 

intended to satisfy other SIP 

requirements under the CAA, such as 

‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or ‘‘attainment 

plan SIP’’ submissions to address the 

nonattainment planning requirements of 

part D of title I of the CAA, ‘‘regional 

haze SIP’’ submissions required by EPA 

rule to address the visibility protection 

requirements of CAA section 169A, and 

nonattainment new source review 

permit program submissions to address 

the permit requirements of CAA, title I, 

part D. 

Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing 

and general requirements for 

infrastructure SIP submissions and 

section 110(a)(2) provides more details 

concerning the required contents of 

these submissions. The list of required 

elements provided in section 110(a)(2) 

contains a wide variety of disparate 

provisions, some of which pertain to 

required legal authority, some of which 

pertain to required substantive program 

provisions, and some of which pertain 

to requirements for both authority and 

substantive program provisions.1 EPA 

therefore believes that while the timing 

requirement in section 110(a)(1) is 

unambiguous, some of the other 

statutory provisions are ambiguous. In 

particular, EPA believes that the list of 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29144 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

2See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport 

of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air 

Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; 

Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR 

25162, at 25163–65, May 12, 2005, (explaining 

relationship between timing requirement of section 

110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)). 

3EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 

110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various 

subparts of part D set specific dates for submission 

of certain types of SIP submissions in designated 

nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, 

e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates 

for submission of emissions inventories for the 

ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are 

necessarily later than three years after promulgation 

of the new or revised NAAQS. 

4See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to 

the New Source Review (NSR) State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment 

New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR 

4339, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action 

approving the structural PSD elements of the New 

Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to 

meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR 

rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 78 FR 

4337, January 22, 2013 (EPA’s final action on the 

infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS). 

5On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, 

through the Tennessee Department of Environment 

and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA 

demonstrating that the State meets the requirements 

of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action 

for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on 

January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action 

on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 

2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 

42997), EPA took separate proposed and final 

actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure 

SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007 

submittal. 

6For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5

NAAQS required the deployment of a system of 

new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new 

indicator species for the new NAAQS. 

7EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA 

requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate 

regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The 

required elements for infrastructure SIP 

submissions provided in section 

110(a)(2) contains ambiguities 

concerning what is required for 

inclusion in an infrastructure SIP 

submission. 

The following examples of 

ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA 

to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and 

section 110(a)(2) requirements with 

respect to infrastructure SIP 

submissions for a given new or revised 

NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is 

that section 110(a)(2) requires that 

‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the 

list of requirements therein, while EPA 

has long noted that this literal reading 

of the statute is internally inconsistent 

and would create a conflict with the 

nonattainment provisions in part D of 

title I of the CAA, which specifically 

address nonattainment SIP 

requirements.2 Section 110(a)(2)(I) 

pertains to nonattainment SIP 

requirements and part D addresses 

when attainment plan SIP submissions 

to address nonattainment area 

requirements are due. For example, 

section 172(b) requires EPA to establish 

a schedule for submission of such plans 

for certain pollutants when the 

Administrator promulgates the 

designation of an area as nonattainment, 

and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to 

two years or in some cases three years, 

for such designations to be 

promulgated.3 This ambiguity illustrates 

that rather than apply all the stated 

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

strict literal sense, EPA must determine 

which provisions of section 110(a)(2) 

are applicable for a particular 

infrastructure SIP submission. 

Another example of ambiguity within 

section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to 

infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether 

states must meet all of the infrastructure 

SIP requirements in a single SIP 

submission, and whether EPA must act 

upon such SIP submission in a single 

action. Although section 110(a)(1) 

directs states to submit ‘‘a plan’’ to meet 

these requirements, EPA interprets the 

CAA to allow states to make multiple 

SIP submissions separately addressing 

infrastructure SIP elements for the same 

NAAQS. If states elect to make such 

multiple SIP submissions to meet the 

infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA 

can elect to act on such submissions 

either individually or in a larger 

combined action.4 Similarly, EPA 

interprets the CAA to allow it to take 

action on the individual parts of one 

larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP 

submission for a given NAAQS without 

concurrent action on the entire 

submission. For example, EPA has 

sometimes elected to act at different 

times on various elements and subelements of the same infrastructure SIP 

submission.5

Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) may also arise with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submission 

requirements for different NAAQS. 

Thus, EPA notes that not every element 

of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, 

or as relevant, or relevant in the same 

way, for each new or revised NAAQS. 

The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP 

submissions for each NAAQS therefore 

could be different. For example, the 

monitoring requirements that a state 

might need to meet in its infrastructure 

SIP submission for purposes of section 

110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for 

different pollutants, for example 

because the content and scope of a 

state’s infrastructure SIP submission to 

meet this element might be very 

different for an entirely new NAAQS 

than for a minor revision to an existing 

NAAQS.6

EPA notes that interpretation of 

section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when 

EPA reviews other types of SIP 

submissions required under the CAA. 

Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP 

submissions, EPA also has to identify 

and interpret the relevant elements of 

section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to 

these other types of SIP submissions. 

For example, section 172(c)(7) requires 

that attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D have to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment 

plan SIP submissions must meet the 

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

regarding enforceable emission limits 

and control measures and section 

110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency 

resources and authority. By contrast, it 

is clear that attainment plan SIP 

submissions required by part D would 

not need to meet the portion of section 

110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) program required in part C of title 

I of the CAA, because PSD does not 

apply to a pollutant for which an area 

is designated nonattainment and thus 

subject to part D planning requirements. 

As this example illustrates, each type of 

SIP submission may implicate some 

elements of section 110(a)(2) but not 

others. 

Given the potential for ambiguity in 

some of the statutory language of section 

110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA 

believes that it is appropriate to 

interpret the ambiguous portions of 

section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) 

in the context of acting on a particular 

SIP submission. In other words, EPA 

assumes that Congress could not have 

intended that each and every SIP 

submission, regardless of the NAAQS in 

question or the history of SIP 

development for the relevant pollutant, 

would meet each of the requirements, or 

meet each of them in the same way. 

Therefore, EPA has adopted an 

approach under which it reviews 

infrastructure SIP submissions against 

the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), 

but only to the extent each element 

applies for that particular NAAQS. 

Historically, EPA has elected to use 

guidance documents to make 

recommendations to states for 

infrastructure SIPs, in some cases 

conveying needed interpretations on 

newly arising issues and in some cases 

conveying interpretations that have 

already been developed and applied to 

individual SIP submissions for 

particular elements.7 EPA most recently 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29145 

CAA directly applies to states and requires the 

submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, 

regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance 

or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA 

elects to issue such guidance in order to assist 

states, as appropriate. 8 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean 

Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’ 

Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 

2013. 9EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not 

make recommendations with respect to 

infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly 

after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the 

DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 

7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of 

the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA 

elected not to provide additional guidance on the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that 

time. As the guidance is neither binding nor 

required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide 

guidance on a particular section has no impact on 

a state’s CAA obligations. 

10By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to 

include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP 

submission that contained a legal deficiency, such 

as a new exemption for excess emissions during 

SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that 

provision for compliance against the rubric of 

applicable CAA requirements in the context of the 

action on the infrastructure SIP. 

issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs 

on September 13, 2013 (2013 

Guidance).8 EPA developed this 

document to provide states with up-todate guidance for infrastructure SIPs for 

any new or revised NAAQS. Within this 

guidance, EPA describes the duty of 

states to make infrastructure SIP 

submissions to meet basic structural SIP 

requirements within three years of 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS. EPA also made 

recommendations about many specific 

subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are 

relevant in the context of infrastructure 

SIP submissions.9 The guidance also 

discusses the substantively important 

issues that are germane to certain 

subsections of section 110(a)(2). 

Significantly, EPA interprets section 

110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure 

SIP submissions need to address certain 

issues and need not address others. 

Accordingly, EPA reviews each 

infrastructure SIP submission for 

compliance with the applicable 

statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), 

as appropriate. 

As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

is a required element of section 

110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP 

submissions. Under this element, a state 

must meet the substantive requirements 

of section 128, which pertain to state 

boards that approve permits or 

enforcement orders and heads of 

executive agencies with similar powers. 

Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP 

submissions to ensure that the state’s 

SIP appropriately addresses the 

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) 

and section 128. The 2013 Guidance 

explains EPA’s interpretation that there 

may be a variety of ways by which states 

can appropriately address these 

substantive statutory requirements, 

depending on the structure of an 

individual state’s permitting or 

enforcement program (e.g., whether 

permits and enforcement orders are 

approved by a multi-member board or 

by a head of an executive agency). 

However they are addressed by the 

state, the substantive requirements of 

section 128 are necessarily included in 

EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP 

submissions because section 

110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that 

the state satisfy the provisions of section 

128. 

As another example, EPA’s review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions with 

respect to the PSD program 

requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C and EPA’s PSD 

regulations. Structural PSD program 

requirements include provisions 

necessary for the PSD program to 

address all regulated sources and NSR 

pollutants, including Green House 

Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural 

PSD program requirements do not 

include provisions that are not required 

under EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR 

51.166 but are merely available as an 

option for the state, such as the option 

to provide grandfathering of complete 

permit applications with respect to the 

2013 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the 

latter optional provisions are types of 

provisions EPA considers irrelevant in 

the context of an infrastructure SIP 

action. 

For other section 110(a)(2) elements, 

however, EPA’s review of a state’s 

infrastructure SIP submission focuses 

on assuring that the state’s SIP meets 

basic structural requirements. For 

example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, 

inter alia, the requirement that states 

have a program to regulate minor new 

sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether 

the state has an EPA-approved minor 

new source review program and 

whether the program addresses the 

pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In 

the context of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, however, 

EPA does not think it is necessary to 

conduct a review of each and every 

provision of a state’s existing minor 

source program (i.e., already in the 

existing SIP) for compliance with the 

requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations that pertain to such 

programs. 

With respect to certain other issues, 

EPA does not believe that an action on 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is 

necessarily the appropriate type of 

action in which to address possible 

deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP. 

These issues include: (i) Existing 

provisions related to excess emissions 

from sources during periods of startup, 

shutdown, or malfunction that may be 

contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies 

addressing such excess emissions 

(SSM); (ii) existing provisions related to 

‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s 

discretion’’ that may be contrary to the 

CAA because they purport to allow 

revisions to SIP-approved emissions 

limits while limiting public process or 

not requiring further approval by EPA; 

and (iii) existing provisions for PSD 

programs that may be inconsistent with 

current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final 

NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186, 

December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 

FR 32526, June 13, 2007 (‘‘NSR 

Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may 

approve an infrastructure SIP 

submission without scrutinizing the 

totality of the existing SIP for such 

potentially deficient provisions and may 

approve the submission even if it is 

aware of such existing provisions.10 It is 

important to note that EPA’s approval of 

a state’s infrastructure SIP submission 

should not be construed as explicit or 

implicit re-approval of any existing 

potentially deficient provisions that 

relate to the three specific issues just 

described. 

EPA’s approach to review of 

infrastructure SIP submissions is to 

identify the CAA requirements that are 

logically applicable to that submission. 

EPA believes that this approach to the 

review of a particular infrastructure SIP 

submission is appropriate, because it 

would not be reasonable to read the 

general requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 

110(a)(2) as requiring review of each 

and every provision of a state’s existing 

SIP against all requirements in the CAA 

and EPA regulations merely for 

purposes of assuring that the state in 

question has the basic structural 

elements for a functioning SIP for a new 

or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have 

grown by accretion over the decades as 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

under the CAA have evolved, they may 

include some outmoded provisions and 

historical artifacts. These provisions, 

while not fully up to date, nevertheless 

may not pose a significant problem for 

the purposes of ‘‘implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a 

new or revised NAAQS when EPA 

evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure 

SIP submission. EPA believes that a 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29146 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to 

address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to 

the treatment of excess emissions during SSM 

events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of 

Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State 

Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639, 

April 18, 2011. 

12EPA has used this authority to correct errors in 

past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD 

programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions 

Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in 

State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR 

82536, December 30, 2010. EPA has previously 

used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to 

remove numerous other SIP provisions that the 

Agency determined it had approved in error. See, 

e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR 34641, 

June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, 

Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 

FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to 

California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009 

(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs). 

13See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission 

from Colorado on the grounds that it would have 

included a director’s discretion provision 

inconsistent with CAA requirements, including 

section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 

42344, July 21, 2010 (proposed disapproval of 

director’s discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540, 

January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such 

provisions). 

14On January 4, 2013, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in 

Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, issued 

a decision that remanded EPA’s 2007 and 2008 

rules implementing the 1997 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. See 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013). 

The court found that EPA erred in implementing 

the PM2.5 NAAQS pursuant to the general 

implementation provisions of subpart 1 of part D of 

title I of the CAA, rather than pursuant to the 

additional implementation provisions specific to 

particulate matter nonattainment areas in subpart 4. 

Id. at 437. As the requirements of subpart 4 only 

pertain to nonattainment areas, it is EPA’s position 

that the portions of the PM2.5 implementation rules 

that address requirements for PM2.5 attainment and 

unclassifiable areas are not affected by the court’s 

opinion in NRDC v. EPA. EPA does not anticipate 

the need to revise any PSD permit requirements 

promulgated in the PM2.5 implementation rules to 

comply with the court’s decision. Therefore, it is 

EPA’s position that approval of the PSD portions of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submittals for the 2008 

ozone and 2010 NO2 NAAQS as meeting PSD 

requirements in Section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and 

(J) does not conflict with the court’s remand of the 

PM2.5 implementation rules. See also 79 FR 10377 

(February 25, 2014) (approving portions of 

Virginia’s infrastructure SIP submittals as meeting 

PSD requirements for section 110(a)(2) for 1997 and 

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and 2008 lead NAAQS). 

better approach is for states and EPA to 

focus attention on those elements of 

section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely 

to warrant a specific SIP revision due to 

the promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or other factors. 

For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance 

gives simpler recommendations with 

respect to carbon monoxide than other 

NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility 

requirements of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon 

monoxide does not affect visibility. As 

a result, an infrastructure SIP 

submission for any future new or 

revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide 

need only state this fact in order to 

address the visibility prong of section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

Finally, EPA believes that its 

approach with respect to infrastructure 

SIP requirements is based on a 

reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) 

and (2) because the CAA provides other 

avenues and mechanisms to address 

specific substantive deficiencies in 

existing SIPs. These other statutory tools 

allow EPA to take appropriately tailored 

action, depending upon the nature and 

severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. 

Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to 

issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the Agency 

determines that a state’s SIP is 

substantially inadequate to attain or 

maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate 

interstate transport, or to otherwise 

comply with the CAA.11 Section 

110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct 

errors in past actions, such as past 

approvals of SIP submissions.12

Significantly, EPA’s determination that 

an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP 

submission is not the appropriate time 

and place to address all potential 

existing SIP deficiencies does not 

preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on 

provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of 

the basis for action to correct those 

deficiencies at a later time. For example, 

although it may not be appropriate to 

require a state to eliminate all existing 

inappropriate director’s discretion 

provisions in the course of acting on an 

infrastructure SIP submission, EPA 

believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be 

among the statutory bases that EPA 

relies upon in the course of addressing 

such deficiency in a subsequent 

action.13

III. Summary of SIP Revision 

Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA 

requires each state’s SIP to ‘‘include a 

program to provide for the enforcement 

of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A) [CAA Section 

110(a)(2)(A)], and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any 

stationary source within the areas 

covered by the plan as necessary to 

ensure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a 

permit program as required in parts C 

[PSD], and D [nonattainment NSR] of 

this subchapter.’’ Similarly, section 

110(a)(2)(J) requires that for each 

NAAQS the state’s SIP must ‘‘meet the 

applicable requirements of. . .part C of 

this subchapter (relating to prevention 

of significant deterioration of air 

quality).’’ 

As discussed in Section II, ‘‘EPA’s 

Approach to Review Infrastructure 

SIPs,’’ when reviewing infrastructure 

SIP submittals EPA focuses on the 

structural PSD program requirements 

contained in part C as well as EPA’s 

PSD regulations. These structural 

requirements call for the PSD program 

to address all NSR pollutants, including 

GHGs. 

On August 5, 2011, Virginia 

submitted a proposed SIP revision 

which incorporated preconstruction 

permitting requirements for sources of 

PM2.5 into Virginia’s PSD and 

nonattainment NSR programs. 

Subsequent to Virginia’s submittal, two 

decisions by the U.S Court of Appeals 

for the D.C Circuit related to the Federal 

PM2.5 program impacted EPA’s ability to 

fully approve the revisions as submitted 

by Virginia. Virginia consequently 

submitted revisions to their PSD 

program pertaining to preconstruction 

permitting requirements for sources of 

PM2.5 and on February 25, 2014 (79 FR 

10377), EPA fully approved these 

revisions to Virginia’s PSD program. 

With these revisions fully approved, 

Virginia’s SIP approved PSD program 

now contains all of the emission 

limitations, control measures, and other 

program elements required by 40 CFR 

51.165 and 40 CFR 51.166 for all 

required pollutants, including PM2.5. 

Therefore, EPA finds Virginia’s SIP 

meets the statutory obligations relating 

to its PSD permit program set forth in 

section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J) of the CAA 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2010 

NO2 NAAQS.14

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA 

requires each state’s SIP to include 

provisions which will prevent 

emissions from interfering with the 

measures required by another state for 

implementing PSD. Each state’s SIP 

must, under 40 CFR 51.166(k)(1), 

include a source impact analysis which 

requires the owner/operator of each 

proposed source or modification to 

demonstrate that the allowable 

emissions increase from the proposed 

project will not ‘‘cause or contribute to 

air pollution in violation of: (i) Any 

national ambient air quality standard in 

any air quality control region.’’ The 

requirements set forth at 40 CFR 

51.166(k)(l) are consistent with, and 

sufficient to meet, the requirements of 

section 110(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. In 

Virginia, the equivalent requirement to 

40 CFR 51.166(k)(1) is codified at 

9VAC5–80–1715, and this requirement 

is incorporated into the Virginia SIP. 

Therefore, EPA finds Virginia’s SIP 

meets the statutory obligation relating to 

its PSD permit program set forth in 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA for 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 29147 

15 In addition, Virginia’s existing SIP also 

includes Article 8 (Permits for Major Stationary 

Sources and Major Modifications Located in 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Areas) of 

Part II of 9VAC5 Chapter 80, which provides that 

construction and modification of major stationary 

sources in PSD areas will not cause or contribute 

to a violation of any NAAQS. Virginia’s SIP 

approved PSD program also applies to greenhouse 

gases through 9VAC5 Chapter 85, (Permits for 

Stationary Sources of Pollutants Subject to 

Regulation), which implements EPA’s greenhouse 

gas tailoring requirements. 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2

NAAQS.15

Therefore, EPA concludes that 

Virginia’s approved SIP meets 

obligations pursuant to CAA section 

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

respect to the part C permit program for 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2

NAAQS. EPA is proposing approval of 

a revision to the Virginia SIP for 

Virginia’s 2008 ozone and 2010 NO2

submittals for the following 

infrastructure elements with respect to 

the Part C PSD permit program: Section 

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

IV. 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 

program 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. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

following infrastructure elements of 

Virginia’s July 23, 2012 SIP submittal 

for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and May 30, 

2013 SIP submittal for the 2010 NO2

NAAQS with respect to PSD: Section 

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

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VI. 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 approves 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). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
29148 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

In addition, this proposed rule, 

approving Virginia’s July 23, 2012 SIP 

submission for the 2008 ozone NAAQS 

and May 30, 2013 SIP submission for 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as meeting the 

PSD elements in Section 110(a)(2) of the 

CAA, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: May 8, 2014. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11787 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0008; FRL–9911– 

20–Region 1] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Deletion 

of the Town Garage/Radio Beacon, 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 1 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete the Town 

Garage/Radio Beacon, Superfund Site 

(Site) located in Londonderry, New 

Hampshire 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 New Hampshire, through 

the New Hampshire Department of 

Environmental Services (NHDES), have 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than five-year reviews, have been 

completed. However, this deletion does 

not preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

June 20, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1989–0008, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: lovely.william@epa.gov or 

elliott.rodney@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 617–918–0240 or 617–918– 

0372 

• Mail: William Lovely, EPA Region 

1—New England, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Mail Code OSRR07–4, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912 or Rodney 

Elliott, EPA Region 1—New England, 5 

Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 

ORA01–1, Boston, MA 02109–3912 

• Hand delivery: William Lovely, 

EPA Region 1—New England, 5 Post 

Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code 

OSRR07–4, Boston, MA 02109–3912 or 

Rodney Elliott, EPA Region 1—New 

England, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 

100, Mail Code ORA01–1, Boston, MA 

02109–3912. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation (M–F, 9–5), and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989– 

0008. 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 statute. 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, 

Records Center, 5 Post Office Square, 

Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109, 617– 

918–1440, Monday–Friday: 9:00 a.m.– 

5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday– 

Closed, and 

Leach Library, 276 Mammoth Road, 

Londonderry, NH 03055, 603–432– 

1132, Monday–Thursday: 9:00 a.m.– 

8:00 p.m., Thursday: 10:00 a.m.–5:00 

p.m., Friday: 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m., 

Saturday: 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., 

Sunday: Closed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William Lovely, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 1 New England, 5 Post 

Office Square, Mail code OSRR07–4, 

Boston, MA 02109–3912, (617) 918– 

1240, email: lovely.william@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 the Town Garage/Radio 

Beacon Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List (NPL) 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. If we receive 

adverse comment(s), we will withdraw 

the direct final Notice of Deletion, and 

it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Deletion based on this Notice of 

Intent to Delete. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this Notice 

of Intent to Delete. Any parties 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS