[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 21294]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08767]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group
Aviation Rulemaking Committee

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National
Park Service (NPS) are inviting interested persons to apply to fill
three upcoming openings on the National Parks Overflights Advisory
Group (NPOAG) Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The openings will
represent general aviation concerns, air tour operator concerns, and
Native American interests, respectively. Selected members will each
serve 3-year terms.

DATES: Persons interested in applying for the NPOAG openings need to
apply by May 29, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Keith Lusk, Special Programs Staff,
Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region Headquarters,
P.O. Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was
enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the
establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment.
The NPOAG was established in March 2001. The advisory group is
comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation,
commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native
American tribes. The Administrator of the FAA and the Director of NPS
(or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group.
Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-
year terms as chairman of the advisory group.
    In accordance with the Act, the advisory group provides ``advice,
information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the
Director--
    (1) On the implementation of this title [the Act] and the
amendments made by this title;
    (2) On commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in
commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands,
which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour
management plan;
    (3) On other measures that might be taken to accommodate the
interests of visitors to national parks; and
    (4) At the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety,
environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour
operations over a national park or tribal lands.''

 Membership

    The NPOAG ARC is made up of one member representing general
aviation, three members representing the commercial air tour industry,
four members representing environmental concerns, and two members
representing Native American interests. Current members of the NPOAG
ARC are as follows:
    The current NPOAG consists of Heidi Williams representing general
aviation; Alan Stephen, Mark Francis, and Matthew Zuccaro representing
commercial air tour operators; Michael Sutton, Mark Belles, Nicholas
Miller, and Dick Hingson representing environmental interests; and
Leigh Kuwanwisiwma and Martin Begaye representing Native American
interests. The 3-year membership terms of Ms. Williams, Mr. Stephen,
and Mr. Begaye expire on October 9, 2015.

Selection

    In order to retain balance within the NPOAG ARC, the FAA and NPS
are seeking candidates interested in filling the three soon to be
expiring seats. The three seats to be filled will represent general
aviation concerns, air tour operator concerns, and Native American
interests, respectively. The FAA and NPS invite persons interested in
serving on the ARC to contact Mr. Keith Lusk (contact information is
written above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Requests to serve on
the ARC must be made to Mr. Lusk in writing and postmarked or emailed
on or before May 29, 2015. The request should indicate whether or not
you are a member of an association or group related to general aviation
or air tour operations or a member of a Native American tribe or have
another affiliation with issues relating to aircraft flights over
national parks. The request should also state what expertise you would
bring to the NPOAG ARC as related to these issues and concerns. The
term of service for NPOAG ARC members is 3 years. Current members may
re-apply for another term.
    On June 18, 2010, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum
directing agencies in the Executive Branch not to appoint or re-appoint
federally registered lobbyists to advisory committees and other boards
and commissions. Therefore, before appointing an applicant to serve on
the NPOAG, the FAA and NPS will require the prospective candidate to
certify that they are not a federally registered lobbyist.

    Issued in Hawthorne, CA, on April 9, 2015.
Keith Lusk,
Program Manager, Special Programs Staff, Western-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-08767 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 137 (Friday, July 17, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42388]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17614]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0530]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Events Requiring Safety Zones in the Captain
of the Port Lake Michigan Zone--Chicago Air and Water Show

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Chicago
Air and Water Show on a portion of Lake Michigan, on August 13, 2015
through August 18, 2015. This action is necessary and intended to
ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States
immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the air and water
show. During the enforcement period listed below, the Coast Guard will
enforce restrictions upon, and control movement of, vessels in the
safety zone. No person or vessel may enter the safety zone while it is
being enforced without permission of the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.929 will be enforced for safety
zone (f)(10), Table 33 CFR 165.929, on August 13, 2015, through August
18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on each day.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email LT Lindsay Cook, Waterways Management Division,
Marine Safety Unit Chicago, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Safety
Zone; Chicago Air and Water Show listed as item (f)(10) in Table
165.929 of 33 CFR 165.929. Section 165.929 lists many annual events
requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan zone.
This safety zone encompasses all waters and adjacent shoreline of Lake
Michigan and Chicago Harbor bounded by a line drawn from 41[deg]55.900'
N at the shoreline, then east to 41[deg]55.900' N, 087[deg]37.200' W,
then southeast to 41[deg]54.000' N, 087[deg]36.000' W, then
southwestward to the northeast corner of the Jardine Water Filtration
Plant, then due west to the shore. This zone will be enforced on August
13, 2015, through August 18, 2015, from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on
each day.
    All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene representative to enter, move
within, or exit this safety zone. Requests must be made in advance and
approved by the Captain of the Port before transits will be authorized.
Approvals will be granted on a case by case basis. Vessels and persons
granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey all lawful
orders or directions of the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or his
or her on-scene representative.
    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.929, Safety
Zones; Annual events requiring safety zones in the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan zone, and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this
publication in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the
maritime community with advance notification of this enforcement period
via Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or a designated on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 during the event.

    Dated: June 16, 2015.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2015-17614 Filed 7-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Responses to Comments Received on Proposed Renewal of the Information Collection Request (ICR) for Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA section 8(a))

Background
On September 21, 2021 (86 FR 52457), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register and sent consultation emails to nine recipients announcing that it was planning to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal of the collection of information under Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) requirements established under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA section 8(a)). The public comment period closed on November 22, 2021. The Agency received comments from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Giant Cement Holdings (GCHI), and Arakawa Chemical in response to this notice and the consultation request.

Public Comments and EPA Responses

Comment 1: Need for collection
 ACC commented that it supports both EPA's need to collect relevant information on chemicals in commerce and the practical use of the data collected to assist in the agency's implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
 Arakawa stated that the required information is not otherwise available.
 GCHI stated that they were not aware of other collections of these data.

Response:  EPA agrees that the information collected through CDR are needed to implement TSCA and that the data are not available elsewhere.

Comment 2: Website, General Guidance
 Arakawa Chemical noted that the website was clear, had easy-to-understand language, and linked to important pages and resources which made navigation easy.
 GCHI noted that the information needs for CDR submission are clear and understandable.  GHCI stated that it would be helpful to have improved guidance regarding making estimations when information is not known and provided an example regarding estimating the number of employees potentially exposed at their customer sites needed for reporting processing and use information.
 ACC provided comments to improve EPA's guidance materials, specifically noting differences between the CDR use codes and those used for the reporting in OECD programs.  ACC suggested that EPA revise and clarify the use code descriptions to align with the OECD terminology and use codes prior to the next CDR submission period.

Response:  EPA appreciates the suggestions for improvements to the guidance materials and will update the Instructions and other guidance materials prior to the 2024 CDR submission period.

Comment 3: Electronic Reporting
 Arakawa Chemical stated that the reporting application was easy to use, noting that the substantiation process was slightly more difficult but that the related guidance materials were sufficient. They did not have any problems with submitting data through CDX.
 GCHI stated that the reporting application was relatively easy to navigate. They also noted that the use of CDX as one clearing house for most EPA reporting programs is efficient and provides relative ease of use.  The company noted the ability to designate one Responsible Office to register for multiple programs is highly efficient.
 ACC stated that many companies had problems with the electronic reporting, some related to eCDRweb (the CDR electronic reporting tool) and others to EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX).  ACC attached a list of lessons learned, issues, and recommendations sent to EPA separately from the ICR renewal process. ACC suggested that EPA completely rewrite eCDRweb and CDX prior to the 2024 CDR submission period.
 ACC also suggested changes to the eCDRweb reporting tool, the CDX data portal, and the use of Excel and eCDRweb XML templates.  In particular, ACC suggests that EPA include CBI substantiation questions on the templates, allow PDF uploads of substantiations (similar to that used in the Section 14 program), enable automatic copying of CBI substantiations from one field to the next, and combine certain data elements to enable one set of substantiation questions to apply to the combination.

Response:  EPA is pleased to hear that some companies had a positive experience with the reporting tool, which had been modernized for the 2020 CDR submission period. However, EPA recognizes that there were technical difficulties associated with CDX and the eCDRweb reporting tool.  The Agency fixed many of the issues during the submission period and has continued to update the software for the 2024 submission period. ACC's detailed listing of items (provided as an attachment to their comments) and originally provided to EPA earlier in 2021 has been very helpful in providing summarized feedback useful for identifying needed upgrades, many of which have already been addressed.

EPA disagrees that eCDRweb needs to be completely rewritten. For the 2020 submission period, EPA had completely rewritten the previous reporting tool to better enable integration with the Agency's newer platforms, provide an improved user interface, and to incorporate reporting requirement changes. The issues experienced during the submission period were not identified during the internal or industry testing conducted prior to the reporting tool's launch.  Once all updates to the reporting tool are completed, the Agency plans to test it prior to the 2024 submission period using test submissions based on some of the 2020 submissions.

Regarding the CBI substantiations, EPA is exploring methods to make the submission of CBI substantiations more efficient for the reporter while ensuring that any CBI claims meet TSCA requirements, including that substantiation be provided for each claim.

Comment 4: ACC requested that any changes to the CDR reporting requirements be finalized six months prior to the start of the reporting period, noting that this would allow for beta testing of updates to the CDR reporting tool and provide time for companies to update their internal configurations.  ACC also suggested that EPA conduct a longer beta-testing window [than provided prior to the 2020 CDR] to ensure the previous problems are fixed and any new changes are functioning properly.

Response:  EPA agrees that it is important for the reporting requirements to be established in time to allow companies adequate time to prepare and submit CDR information. For the 2020 CDR, EPA extended the submission period to give companies the needed time to update their systems but did not adjust the beginning of the submission period to allow those companies that were ready to submit their information.  EPA will evaluate timing needs as the 2024 CDR submission period approaches.

Comment 5: Burden Estimates
 ACC commented that EPA's burden estimates are only accurate if the agency overhaul's the electronic reporting system to fix the technical issues experienced during the 2020 CDR submission period.  They noted that ACC member companies reported spending approximately 70-100 hours each, or three times the amount of time as in previous years, over the course of the 2020 reporting period managing the technical issues associated with the eCDRweb reporting tool. The issues included problems with the validation process, preview generation process, confidential business information (CBI) substantiations, co-manufacturing submissions, and other general reporting processes.  ACC provided alternate burden estimates with assumptions that, during the next CDR submission period, (1) submitters experience similar system problems and (2) EPA eliminates the systemic problems. ACC also stated that EPA's burden estimates fail to account for the need for a company to update its CDX registration (due, for example, to changing staff) or the need for a company to configure their internal systems to meet new EPA reporting requirements.
 GCHI believed burden costs to be conservative based on their own experience.
 Arakawa Chemical stated that Burden Cost Analysis also noted that the BLS Labor Statistics labor rates are accurate, and that adoption of the CDR database reduces the reporting burden by minimizing both the cost and the time required to review, edit, and transmit data to the Agency.

Response:  EPA believes it is not necessary to adjust the burden estimates given that the electronic submission issues experienced in 2020 have been addressed and are not expected to repeat for 2024.

Regarding the need to update CDX registration when staff changes, EPA expects that each year a certain number of submitters are new, which includes both companies who have never filed a CDR submission and companies who have had staff turnover and the new staff need to register for CDR. In addition, in the ICR addendum associated with the CDR Revisions Rule, all submitters were assumed to be new for the first reporting cycle, in order to account for any new EPA reporting requirements, including the need to update internal systems.


[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75798]
[DOCID:fr18de06-68]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54810A; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto
and Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to
Amendment No. 2 Thereto To Allow Certain Institutional Customers To
Elect Not To Receive Account Statements

December 8, 2006.

Correction

    In FR Doc. No. E6-20227, beginning on page 69165 for Wednesday,
November 29, 2006, a request for comment on Amendment No. 2 was
inadvertently omitted. Accordingly, the following should be inserted
immediately before the Conclusion of the document:

``Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether such amendment
is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2005-90 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-90. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2005-90 and should be submitted on or before
January 8, 2007.''

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21479 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38112-38114]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16602]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373; FRL-9981-68--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
state of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the infrastructure
requirement for interstate transport of pollution with respect to the
2012 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 4,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2016-0373 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed

from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically
any information you consider to be confidential business information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 12, 2015, the State of West
Virginia, through the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) submitted a SIP revision addressing all required
infrastructure elements under section 110(a) of the CAA for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. On May 12, 2017, EPA approved all portions of
West Virginia's November 12, 2015 submittal except the portions of the
submittal which address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4). See 82 FR 22076. As explained in the
final rule, EPA intended to take separate action on these portions of
West Virginia's submittal. At this time, EPA is only taking action on
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and is not taking action on
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4); EPA is proposing separate action on
prong 4. See 83 FR 27734 (June 14, 2018).

I. Background

A. General

    Particle pollution is a complex mixture of extremely small
particles and liquid droplets in the air. When inhaled, these particles
can reach the deepest regions of the lungs. Exposure to particle
pollution is linked to a variety of significant health problems.
Particle pollution also is the main cause of visibility impairment in
the nation's cities and national parks. PM2.5 can be emitted
directly into the atmosphere, or it can form from chemical reactions of
precursor gases including sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), certain volatile organic compounds (VOC), and
ammonia. On January 15, 2013, EPA revised the level of the health based
(primary) annual PM2.5 standard to 12 micrograms per meter
cubed ([micro]g/m\3\). See 78 FR 3086.

B. EPA's Infrastructure Requirements

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit a SIP revision to address 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 to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS--such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority. 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 of each NAAQS and what
is in each state's existing SIP. In particular, the data and analytical
tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP
revision for a new or revised NAAQS affect 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.
    Specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIP submissions. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific
elements that states must meet for infrastructure SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS such as requirements
for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that
are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

C. Interstate Pollution Transport Requirements

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires a state's SIP to
address any emissions activity in one state that contributes
significantly to nonattainment, or interferes with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in any downwind state. The EPA sometimes refers to these
requirements as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and
prong 2 (interference with maintenance), or jointly as the ``good
neighbor'' provision of the CAA. On March 17, 2016, EPA issued a
memorandum providing information on the development and review of SIPs
that address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS (2016 PM2.5 Memorandum).\1\ Further information can be
found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this rulemaking
action, which is available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number
EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Information on the Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor''
Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air
Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (March 17, 2016). A copy is included in the
docket for this rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    West Virginia's November 12, 2015 SIP submittal alleged that the
current West Virginia SIP contains adequate measures to ensure that the
state is not causing significant contribution to nonattainment in, nor
interfering with the maintenance of, any other state with respect to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia refers to the measures
detailed in the section pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(A), which
included numerous SIP-approved measures and other federally enforceable
measures, pursuant to permitting requirements under the CAA, that apply
to sources of PM2.5 and its precursors within West Virginia.
A detailed summary of West Virginia's submittal and EPA's review and
rationale for approval of this SIP revision as meeting CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS may be found in
the TSD for this rulemaking action, which is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373.
    EPA used the information in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum
and additional information for the evaluation and came to the same
conclusion as West Virginia. As discussed in greater detail in the TSD,
EPA identified the potential downwind nonattainment and maintenance
receptors identified in the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum, and then
evaluated them to determine if West Virginia's emissions could
potentially contribute to nonattainment and maintenance problems in
2021, the attainment year for moderate PM2.5 nonattainment
areas. Specifically, the analysis identified the following areas as
potential nonattainment and maintenance receptors: (i) 17 potential
receptors in California; (ii) one potential receptor in Shoshone
County, Idaho; (iii) one potential receptor in Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania; (iv) data gaps exist for the monitors in four counties

in Florida; and (v) data gaps exist for all monitors in Illinois. For
the 17 receptors in California and one potential receptor in Idaho,
based on EPA's evaluation of distance and wind direction, EPA proposes
to conclude that West Virginia's emissions do not significantly impact
those receptors. For the potential receptor in Allegheny County, EPA
expects the air quality affecting that monitor to improve to the point
where the monitor will not be a nonattainment or maintenance receptor
by 2021 and is therefore unlikely to be a receptor for purposes of
interstate transport. For the four counties in Florida and the monitors
in Illinois with data gaps, EPA initially treats those receptors as
potential nonattainment or maintenance receptors, but it is unlikely
that they will be nonattainment or maintenance receptors in 2021
because the most recent air quality data (from 2015-2017 for Florida
and from 2015-2016 for Illinois) indicates that all monitors are likely
attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS and are therefore unlikely to be
nonattainment or maintenance concerns in 2021. Therefore, EPA proposes
to conclude that West Virginia emissions will not contribute to those
monitors. For these reasons, EPA is proposing to find that West
Virginia's existing SIP provisions as identified in the November 12,
2015 SIP submittal are adequate to prevent its emission sources from
significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance in another state with respect to the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the November 12, 2015 West Virginia SIP
revision addressing the interstate transport requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS because the submittal adequately addresses
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public
comments on the issues discussed in this document. These comments will
be considered before taking final action.

IV. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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).
    The SIP, addressing West Virginia's interstate transport
obligations with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, is not
approved to apply on any Indian reservation land as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151 or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: July 12, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-16602 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 37211]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16813]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R09-SFUND-2017-01; FRL-9965-95-Region 9]

MEW Superfund Area, Mountain View, CA; Notice of Proposed
Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent for Certain Response Action
Activities by Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability for review and comment
of a proposed administrative settlement agreement under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''), between the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), and Warmington Fairchild Associates LLC
(``Warmingotn''), regarding the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW)
Superfund Area in Mountain View, California. Under this Settlement
Agreement, Warmington agrees to perform certain response action
activities at the property located at 277 Fairchild Drive and 228 and
236 Evandale Avenue, in Mountain View, California.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
SFUND-2017-01, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (``CBI'') or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Dreyfus, Assistant Regional
Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105; tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the terms of the settlement,
Warmington agrees to implement the Response Action Plan, dated June 30,
2017, intended to lower ``hot spot'' area trichloroethene (TCE)
contaminant concentrations in the soil gas and groundwater. The
Response Action Plan provides for reduction of ``hot spot''
contamination to reduce potential risks to human health from exposure
to TCE through the subsurface vapor intrusion pathway prior to
construction of residential units in those areas. Warmington agrees to
pay EPA's costs for oversight of the response action activities. In
exchange, Warmington will receive a covenant not to sue from the United
States. EPA will consider all comments submitted by the date set forth
above and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate the
proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.

    Dated: July 28, 2017.
Enrique Manzanilla,
Director, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2017-16813 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P