Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2865 

include permitting requirements that 

the Supreme Court found 

impermissible. Specifically, EPA is not 

applying the requirement that a state’s 

SIP-approved PSD program require that 

sources obtain PSD permits when GHGs 

are the only pollutant (i) that the source 

emits or has the potential to emit above 

the major source thresholds, or (ii) for 

which there is a significant emissions 

increase and a significant net emissions 

increase from a modification (e.g. 40 

CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v)). EPA anticipates a 

need to revise federal PSD rules in light 

of the Supreme Court opinion. In 

addition, EPA anticipates that many 

states will revise their existing SIPapproved PSD programs in light of the 

Supreme Court’s decision. The timing 

and content of subsequent EPA actions 

with respect to the EPA regulations and 

state PSD program approvals are 

expected to be informed by additional 

legal process before the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia Circuit. At this juncture, EPA 

is not expecting states to have revised 

their PSD programs and is only 

evaluating such submissions to assure 

that the state’s program correctly 

addresses GHGs consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s decision. 

In its December 9, 2014 letter, New 

Hampshire indicated that it will not 

implement the GHG requirements as to 

sources that would be subject to the PSD 

program solely by virtue of their GHG 

emissions. New Hampshire indicated 

that it will not treat GHG as a pollutant 

for purposes of determining whether a 

source is a major source required to 

obtain a PSD permit. However, 

consistent with the Supreme Court’s 

June 23, 1014 decision, New Hampshire 

will be implementing the GHG 

requirements that apply to sources that 

are subject to the PSD program 

requirements by virtue of other 

regulated pollutants. Once EPA revises 

its regulations to address the Supreme 

Court’s recent GHG decision, the NH 

DES will revise its rules and submit the 

revisions to EPA for approval into the 

SIP. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA proposes to approve the NH 

DES’s November 15, 2012 proposed SIP 

revision. The proposed SIP revision, as 

clarified in a letter dated December 9, 

2014 from the NH DES, establishes a 

state PSD program at Env-A 619, 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration’’ that meets all 

requirements for a SIP-approved PSD 

program under 40 CFR 51.166, section 

110 of the CAA, and EPA regulations. 

VI. 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, EPA’s role is to approve 

state choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed 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 Clean Air Act; 

and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: December 31, 2014. 

Deborah A Szaro, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New 

England. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00872 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9921–70– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 

Nitrogen Dioxide, and 2010 Sulfur 

Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards; Approval of Air Pollution 

Emergency Episode Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

portions of three State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision submittals from the 

District of Columbia (hereafter ‘‘the 

District’’) 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 District 

has made three separate submittals 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS, the 2010 nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. One of the 

infrastructure submittals also includes 

the ‘‘Revised Air Quality Emergency 

Plan for the District of Columbia’’ for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

satisfying EPA’s requirements for air 

quality emergency episodes. In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

approve, in accordance with the 

requirements of the CAA: The three 

infrastructure SIP submissions with the 

exception of the portions of the 

submittals addressing transport of 

pollution and the portions of the 

submittals addressing the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permitting requirements; and the 

District’s Air Quality Emergency Plan 

which also meets EPA’s requirements 

for air pollution prevention contingency 

plans. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before February 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2014–0701 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–2014–0701, 

Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director, 

Office of Air Program Planning, 

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–2014– 

0701. 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 District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment, Air 

Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., 

5th floor, Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), 

EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for 

ozone based on 8-hour average 

concentrations. EPA revised the level of 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 

parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. 

On February 9, 2010 (75 FR 6474), EPA 

established a new 1-hour primary 

NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts 

per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of the 

yearly distribution of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. On June 22, 

2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a 

revised NAAQS for the 1-hour primary 

SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion 

(ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 

annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily 

maximum concentrations. 

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the 

CAA, states are required to submit SIPs 

meeting the applicable requirements of 

section 110(a)(2) within three years after 

promulgation of a new or revised 

NAAQS or within such shorter period 

as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) 

requires states to address basic SIP 

elements such as requirements for 

monitoring, basic program 

requirements, and legal authority that 

are designed to assure attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS. Section 

110(a) imposes the obligation upon 

states to make a SIP submission to EPA 

for a new or revised NAAQS, but the 

contents of that 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 content 

of such SIP submission may also vary 

depending upon what provisions the 

state’s existing SIP already contains. 

More specifically, section 110(a)(1) 

provides the procedural and timing 

requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) 

lists specific elements that states must 

meet for ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP 

requirements related to a newly 

established or revised NAAQS. As 

mentioned earlier, these requirements 

include basic SIP elements such as 

requirements for monitoring, basic 

program requirements, and legal 

authority that are designed to assure 

attainment and maintenance of the 

NAAQS. 

II. Summary of State Submittals 

The District through the District 

Department of the Environment (DDOE) 

submitted three separate revisions to its 

SIP to satisfy the requirements of 

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

different NAAQS. On June 6, 2014, 

DDOE submitted a SIP revision 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. 

On June 13, 2014, DDOE submitted an 

infrastructure SIP revision for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. On July 17, 2014, DDOE 

submitted an infrastructure SIP revision 

for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. Each of the 

infrastructure SIP revisions addressed 

the following infrastructure elements for 

the applicable NAAQS: Section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I), (D)(i)(II), 

(D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and 

(M) of the CAA. The three infrastructure 

SIP submittals do not address section 

110(a)(2)(I) 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, if necessary. 

In addition, the June 13, 2014 SIP 

submittal includes the ‘‘Revised Air 

Quality Emergency Plan for the District 

of Columbia,’’ which the District is 

requesting EPA to approve into the SIP 

to address EPA’s requirements for 

preventing air pollution emergency 

episodes which are located in 40 CFR 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2867 

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. 

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 

Continued 

part 51, subpart H and section 

110(a)(2)(G) of the CAA. Section 

110(a)(2)(G), among other things, 

requires state SIPs to provide adequate 

contingency plans to implement a 

state’s authority similar to section 303 of 

the CAA regarding imminent and 

substantial endangerment authority. The 

entire District is part of the National 

Capital Interstate air quality control 

region, which is classified as a Priority 

I region for particulate matter, sulfur 

oxides (SOX), carbon monoxide (CO), 

and ozone and as a Priority III region for 

NO2. See 40 CFR 52.471. Therefore, in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H, the District submitted its Air Quality 

Emergency Plan with contingency 

measures for all pollutants, including 

particulate matter, SOX, CO, and ozone. 

III. EPA’s Approach To Review 

Infrastructure SIPs 

EPA is acting upon the District’s SIP 

submissions that addresses the 

infrastructure requirements of section 

110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2

NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. 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 section 169A of the 

CAA, 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 

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


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 

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 

D.C. 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. 

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, 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 

attainment plan SIP submissions 

required by part D to meet the 

‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section 

110(a)(2); thus, 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 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 

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). 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2869 

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. 

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 section 110(k)(6) of the 

CAA 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). 

14Letters regarding EPA’s completeness 

determinations are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking action. 

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 

section 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 

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

IV. Summary of EPA’s Rationale for 

Proposing Approval 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V, EPA found that each of the 

infrastructure SIP submittals is 

technically incomplete for the portions 

of the infrastructure elements in section 

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

relating to the permitting program for 

PSD, because the District has not 

adequately addressed the requirements 

of part C of Title I of the CAA for having 

a SIP-approved PSD program. EPA 

found the remainder of the SIP 

submittals to be administratively and 

technically complete. EPA sent letters to 

DDOE in July 21, 2014 and November 4, 

2014 notifying the District of these 

determinations for each of the 

applicable NAAQS.14 As a result of 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

15On August 7, 1980 (45 FR 52676, at 52741), 

EPA disapproved a number of states SIPs for PSD 

purposes, including the District and incorporated 

by reference portions of the Federal PSD provisions 

in 40 CFR 52.21 into the implementation plans for 

those states. This FIP was subsequently amended to 

reflect amendments to the Federal PSD rule on 

March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11316, at 11322) and 

December 24, 2003 (68 FR 74483, at 74488). At 

present, the PSD FIP, incorporated by reference in 

the District SIP in 40 CFR 52.499, specifically 

contains the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, with the 

exception of paragraph (a)(1). 

these incompleteness findings, EPA is 

not taking rulemaking action on the 

PSD-related portions of section 

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

the District’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS, until the District through 

DDOE submits a SIP to address the PSD 

permit program requirements of part C 

of Title I of the CAA. 

EPA recognizes, however, that the 

District of Columbia is already subject to 

a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

containing the Federal PSD program 15

to correct the SIP deficiency and that 

DDOE would not have to take further 

action for the FIP-based permitting 

process to continue operating. Thus, 

EPA anticipates that there will be no 

adverse consequences to DDOE from 

these incompleteness findings for the 

PSD-related portions of section 

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

the 2008 ozone NAAQS and 2010 NO2

and SO2 NAAQS. Mandatory sanctions 

would not apply to the District under 

CAA section 179 because the failure to 

submit a PSD SIP is neither (1) with 

respect to a submission that is required 

under CAA Title I part D, or (2) in 

response to a SIP call under CAA 

section 110(k)(5). In addition, EPA is 

not subject to any further FIP duties 

from our finding of incompleteness for 

these SIP submittals because there is 

already the FIP implementing the 

Federal PSD program for DDOE which 

addresses the SIP deficiency. 

In addition, EPA is also not taking 

rulemaking action at this time on the 

portion of the infrastructure SIP 

submittals which address section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS and the 2010 NO2 and SO2

NAAQS. EPA will take later rulemaking 

action on these submittals regarding 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing 

approval of the remainder of the 

submittals to address infrastructure 

requirements for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 

the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. A detailed summary of 

EPA’s review and rationale for 

proposing to approve these portions of 

the District’s infrastructure SIP 

submittals may be found in the 

Technical Support Document (TSD) for 

this proposed rulemaking action which 

is available on line at 

www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number 

EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701. 

As mentioned previously, on June 13, 

2014, the District also submitted a SIP 

revision addressing EPA’s contingency 

plan requirements in 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart H (40 CFR 51.150 through 

51.153) and in CAA section 110(2)(G). 

Section 110(a)(2)(G), among other 

things, requires state SIPs to provide 

adequate contingency plans to 

implement the state’s authority similar 

to section 303 of the CAA, regarding 

imminent and substantial endangerment 

authority. Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart H, the District is required to 

have a contingency plan for particulate 

matter, SOX, CO, and ozone. EPA notes 

that there are no applicable 

requirements under 40 CFR part 51, 

subpart H for NO2, and consequently no 

applicable contingency plan 

requirements under CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for NO2 for the District, as 

Priority III regions are not required to 

have emergency episode plans. 

EPA finds that the District’s 

Emergency Plan satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart 

H with respect to contingency plans for 

all applicable pollutants. In this 

rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to 

approve into the SIP the ‘‘Revised Air 

Quality Emergency Plan for the District 

of Columbia,’’ pursuant to section 110 of 

the CAA, and is also proposing that the 

three infrastructure SIP submittals for 

the applicable NAAQS meet the 

applicable contingency plan 

requirements in CAA section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

2010 NO2 NAAQS, and 2010 SO2

NAAQS. A detailed summary of EPA’s 

review and rationale for approving the 

‘‘Revised Air Quality Emergency Plan 

for the District of Columbia’’ into the 

District’s SIP because it meets 

requirements in CAA section 110 and 40 

CFR part 51, subpart H is provided in 

our TSD accompanying this proposed 

rulemaking action. EPA is soliciting 

public comments on the issues 

discussed in this document. These 

comments will be considered before 

taking final action. 

V. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

District’s infrastructure submittals dated 

June 6, 2014, June 13, 2014, and July 17, 

2014 for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, the 

2008 ozone NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2

NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the 

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

CAA, including specifically section 

110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), 

(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M) for 

the three NAAQS with the exception of 

the requirements related to the PSD 

permitting program of part C, Title I of 

the CAA in section 110(a)(2)(C), 

(D)(i)(II), (D)(ii), and (J), and with the 

exception of the transport requirement 

of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is not 

taking action on the portions of the 

three infrastructure submittals intended 

to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for 

transport or on the portions of the three 

infrastructure SIP submittals addressing 

the PSD related requirements in section 

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

EPA will take later separate action on 

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

transport for the three NAAQS. 

EPA is also proposing to approve as 

a SIP revision the ‘‘Revised Air Quality 

Emergency Plan for the District of 

Columbia,’’ submitted on June 13, 2014, 

as it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart H for all applicable 

pollutants and section 110 of the CAA, 

including specifically section 

110(a)(2)(G) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 

the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS. 

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 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 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 13 / Wednesday, January 21, 2015 / Proposed Rules 2871 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed rulemaking 

action, pertaining to the District of 

Columbia’s section 110(a)(2) 

infrastructure requirements for the 2008 

ozone, the 2010 NO2, and the 2010 SO2

NAAQS and to the District of 

Columbia’s contingency plan for the 

prevention of air pollution episodes, 

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, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: December 18, 2014. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00640 Filed 1–20–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0790; FRL–9919–36– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AS10 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and 

Institutional Boilers 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: On February 1, 2013, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

finalized amendments to the National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, 

Commercial, and Institutional Boilers 

(Area Source Boilers Rule). 

Subsequently, the EPA received three 

petitions for reconsideration of the final 

rule. The EPA is announcing 

reconsideration of and requesting public 

comment on five issues raised in the 

petitions for reconsideration, as detailed 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

In this action, the EPA is also 

proposing a limited number of technical 

corrections and amendments to the final 

rule to correct inadvertent errors and to 

clarify some applicability and 

implementation issues raised by 

stakeholders subject to the final rule. 

Also, we propose to delete rule 

provisions for an affirmative defense for 

malfunction in light of a recent court 

decision on the issue. 

The EPA is seeking comment only on 

the five issues being reconsidered, the 

proposed deletion of the affirmative 

defense and on the technical corrections 

and amendments described in the 

preceding paragraph. The EPA will not 

respond to any comments addressing 

any other issues or any other provisions 

of the final rule. 

DATES: Comments. Comments must be 

received on or before March 9, 2015, or 

30 days after date of public hearing, if 

later. 

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts us 

requesting to speak at a public hearing 

by January 26, 2015, a public hearing 

will be held on February 5, 2015. If you 

are interested in attending the public 

hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at 

(919) 541–7966 to verify that a hearing 

will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2006–0790, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 566–1741. 

• Mail: Environmental Protection 

Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), 

Mail code: 28221T, Attention Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0790, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate 

copy also be sent to the contact person 

identified below (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

• Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket 

Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA WJC 

West Building, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

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–OAR–2006– 

0790. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change and 

may be made available on-line 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 the 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 the 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the 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. 

Public Hearing: If anyone contacts the 

EPA requesting a public hearing by 

January 26, 2015, the public hearing 

will be held on February 5, 2015 at the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS