[Federal Register: July 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 145)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41490-41491]
[DOCID:fr30jy07-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0252; FRL-8446-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Clean
Air Interstate Rule Nitrogen Oxides Annual Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Texas on August 4,
2006, as the Texas Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) Annual Abbreviated SIP. The abbreviated SIP revision
EPA is proposing to approve includes the Texas methodologies for
allocation of annual NOX allowances for Phase 1 of CAIR, the
control periods 2009 through 2014, and for allocating allowances from
the compliance supplement pool (CSP) in the CAIR NOX annual
trading program. EPA is proposing to determine that the Texas CAIR
NOX Annual Abbreviated SIP revision satisfies the applicable
requirements of a CAIR abbreviated SIP revision. Upon the effective
date of approval of the Texas CAIR NOX Annual Abbreviated
SIP revision, EPA by ministerial action will note in the Texas CAIR
NOX Annual Federal Implementation Plan's (FIP) incorporated
regulations that the Texas rules for annual NOX allowances
under Phase 1 of CAIR and allocating

allowances from the CSP apply, rather than the Federal FIP rules.
    The intended effect of this action is to reduce NOX
emissions from the State of Texas that are contributing to
nonattainment of the PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS or standard) in downwind states. This action is being
taken under section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air
Permits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Comments may also be
submitted electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following
the detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposal, please contact Ms. Adina Wiley (6PD-R), Air Permits
Section, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue
(6PD-R), Suite 1200, Dallas, TX 75202-2733. The telephone number is
(214) 665-2115. Ms. Wiley can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the
direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in
response to this action, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA
receives relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the
rule, and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 16, 2007.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. E7-14484 Filed 7-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47838-47839]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19685]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9715-5]

Delegation of Authority to the State of West Virginia To
Implement and Enforce Additional or Revised National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants and New Source Performance Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of delegation of authority.

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

SUMMARY: On June 22, 2012, EPA sent the State of West Virginia (West
Virginia) a letter acknowledging that West Virginia's delegation of
authority to implement and enforce National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) had been updated, as provided for under previously approved
delegation mechanisms. To inform regulated facilities and the public of
West Virginia's updated delegation of authority to implement and
enforce NESHAP and NSPS, EPA is making available a copy of EPA's letter
to West Virginia through this notice.

DATES: On June 22, 2012, EPA sent West Virginia a letter acknowledging
that West Virginia's delegation of authority to implement and enforce
NESHAP and NSPS had been updated.

ADDRESSES: Copies of documents pertaining to this action are available
for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. Copies of West
Virginia's submittal are also available at the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street
SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304. Copies of West Virginia's notice
to EPA that West Virginia has updated its incorporation by reference of
Federal NESHAP and NSPS, and of EPA's response, may also be found
posted on EPA Region III's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/delegate/wvdelegation.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Chalmers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2012, West Virginia notified EPA
that West Virginia has updated its incorporation by reference of
Federal NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards, to the extent
referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 60, 61, and
63, effective June 1, 2011. On June 22, 2012, EPA sent West Virginia a
letter acknowledging that West Virginia now has the authority to
implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS as specified by West Virginia
in its notice to EPA, as provided for under previously approved
automatic delegation mechanisms. All notifications, applications,
reports and other correspondence required pursuant to the delegated
NESHAP and NSPS must be submitted to both the US EPA Region III and to
the West Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. A copy of EPA's
letter to West Virginia follows:

``Mr. John Benedict, Director, Division of Air Quality, West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 601 57th Street,
Charleston, West Virginia 25304

    Dear Mr. Benedict: The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has previously delegated to the State of West Virginia
(West Virginia) the authority to implement and enforce various
federal National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), which are
found at 40 C.F.R. Parts 60, 61 and 63.\1\ In

those actions EPA also delegated to West Virginia the authority to
implement and enforce any future EPA NESHAP or NSPS on the condition
that West Virginia legally adopt the future standards, make only
allowed wording changes, and provide specified notice to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA has posted copies of these actions at: http://www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/delegate/wvdelegation.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated June 6, 2012, West Virginia informed EPA that
West Virginia had updated its incorporation by reference of federal
NESHAP and NSPS to include many such standards, to the extent
referenced in 40 C.F.R. Parts 60, 61, and 63, effective June 1,
2011. West Virginia noted that it understood that it was
automatically delegated the authority to implement these standards.
West Virginia committed to enforcing the standards in conformance
with the terms of EPA's previous delegations of authority. West
Virginia made only allowed wording changes.
    West Virginia provided copies of the revised West Virginia
Legislative Rules which specify the NESHAP and NSPS which West
Virginia has adopted by reference. These revised Legislative Rules
are entitled 45 CSR 34--``Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants,'' and 45 CSR 16--``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources.'' These revised Rules have an effective date of
June 1, 2012.
    Accordingly, EPA acknowledges that West Virginia now has the
authority, as provided for under the terms of EPA's previous
delegation actions, to implement and enforce the NESHAP and NSPS
standards which West Virginia has adopted by reference in West
Virginia's revised Legislative Rules 45 CSR 34 and 45 CSR 16, both
effective on June 1, 2012.
    Please note that on December 19, 2008 in Sierra Club vs. EPA,\2\
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit vacated certain provisions of the General Provisions of 40
C.F.R. Part 63 relating to exemptions for startup, shutdown, and
malfunction (SSM). On October 16, 2009, the Court issued the mandate
vacating these SSM exemption provisions, which are found at 40
C.F.R. Part 63, Sec. Sec.  63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3rd 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources the SSM exemption as
provided for in the vacated provisions at 40 C.F.R. Part 63,
Sec. Sec.  63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1), even though EPA has not yet
formally removed the SSM exemption provisions from the General
Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63. Because West Virginia incorporated
40 C.F.R. Part 63 by reference, West Virginia should also no longer
allow sources to use the former SSM exemption from the General
Provisions of 40 C.F.R. Part 63 due to the Court's ruling in Sierra
Club vs. EPA.
    EPA appreciates West Virginia's continuing NESHAP and NSPS
enforcement efforts, and also West Virginia's decision to take
automatic delegation of additional and more recent NESHAP and NSPS
by adopting them by reference.
    If you have any questions, please contact me or Ms. Kathleen
Cox, Associate Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at 215-
814-2173.

Sincerely,

Diana Esher, Director

Air Protection Division''

    This notice acknowledges the update of West Virginia's delegation
of authority to implement and enforce NESHAP and NSPS.

    Dated: August 1, 2012.
Diana Esher,
Director, Air Protection Division, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-19685 Filed 8-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 4933 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation/ OAP and OAQPS 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Clean Air Interstate Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particle Matter and Ozone ( final rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR # 2152.02 9. Keywords sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, emissions trading, ozone, particulate matter 10. Abstract This information to be collected under this ICR is necessary to implement the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The program calls for major reductions of the pollutants that cause particulate matter and ozone pollution. The information collected will be used by EPA to manage an emissions trading program and to track progress in the reduction of emissions resulting from the requirements of CAIR. Respondents include owners of large electric generating units and state and local air pollution control agencies.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Govt. Primary affected public: b. Business or other for profit 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. X Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory Primary obligation to respond: c. Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 1,804 b. Total annual responses 12,000 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 95 % c. Total hours requested 382,693 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 382,693 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 382,693 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 12,428 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 8,151 c. Total annualized cost requested 20,579 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 20,579 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 20,579 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X_ Application for benefits e. P_ Program planning or management b. X Program evaluation f. X Research c. X_ General purpose statistics g. P_ Regulatory or compliance d. X Audit Primary purpose of information collection: e. ( States and locals) and g. ( industry) 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. X Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Triennial 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Beth Murray ( emissions trading) and Bill Kuykendal ( State and local reporting) Phone: 202 343 9115/ 919 541 5372 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44045-44048]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0636; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-065-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
(Sikorsky) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Sikorsky Model S-70, S-70A, and S-70C helicopters. This proposed AD
would establish a new life limit based

on a prorated formula for certain identified components (parts)
installed on Model S-70, S-70A, and S-70C helicopters after being
previously installed on certain military model helicopters. This
proposed AD is prompted by the discovery that certain parts have been
interchanged between military helicopter models with different life
limits and the possibility that these same parts can be interchanged
with civilian models with different life limits. The proposed actions
are intended to establish a pro-rated in service life limit for each
identified part to prevent fatigue failure of a part and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Davison, Flight Test Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-70, S-70A and S-
70C helicopters. Certain parts on Model S-70, S-70A, and S-70C
helicopters are common to military Model UH-60M and SH-60B/F
helicopters. These parts have identical part numbers. However, the part
life limits may be different on the military models and are often lower
due to higher usage and flight load spectrum. This proposed AD is
prompted by the discovery that personnel at a military depot had
installed military Model UH-60M parts on military Model UH-60A/L
helicopters. Because the civilian Model S-70 series helicopters are
derived from the military Model UH-60, it is possible that parts
previously installed on military aircraft with a lower life limit could
inadvertently be later installed on civil aircraft. This proposed AD
would require establishing a pro-rated life limit for each affected
part to account for the heavier usage when previously installed on the
Model UH-60M or SH-60B/F. The proposed actions are intended to
establish appropriate remaining in-service lives to identified parts to
prevent fatigue failure of a part and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant
information and determined that an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of this same type
design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 25 hours time-in-service,
inserting the component life prorating formula into the airworthiness
limitation section of the maintenance manual or instructions for
continued airworthiness, calculating the new life limit for each part
by applying the formula, and establishing life limits for certain parts
without applying the formula. Furthermore, the proposed AD would
require updating the component log or equivalent record with the new
in-service life limit. This proposed AD would also require replacing
each part that has reached or exceeded its new life limit with an
airworthy part. Lastly, this proposed AD would prohibit installing any
applicable part on a Model S-70, S-70A, or S-70C helicopter if the
number of hours is unknown and would prohibit installing certain parts
on a Model S-70, S-70A, or S-70C helicopter if they have been
previously installed on a Model UH-60M helicopter.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 9 helicopters of
U.S. Registry.
    We estimate that the cost to insert the pages into the TM would be
negligible.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on

the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky): Docket No. FAA-2013-0636;
Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-065-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-70, S-70A, and S-70C helicopters,
certificated in any category, with the following parts installed:
    (1) Spindle and liner assembly, part number (P/N) 38023-10374-
041;
    (2) Main Rotor Hub, P/N 70070-10046-055 and -056;
    (3) Main Rotor Spindle nut, P/N 70102-08105-102;
    (4) Main Rotor Control Horn, P/N 70102-08111-047;
    (5) Main Rotor Hub, P/N 70103-08112-041 and -047;
    (6) Rotating Swashplate, P/N 70104-08001-044 and -045;
    (7) Main rotor Shaft Extension, P/N 70351-08186-043;
    (8) Main Rotor Gear Box Housing, P/N 70351-38110-043, -044, and
-045;
    (9) Main Rotor Shaft, P/N 70351-38131-042;
    (10) Output Bevel Gear and Shaft, P/N 70358-06620-101 and -102;
    (11) Left Tie Rod Assembly, P/N 70400-08115-043, -045, -046, and
-047;
    (12) Forward Bellcrank Support Assembly, P/N 70400-08162-042;
    (13) Lateral Servo Bellcrank, P/N 70400-08166-041; or
    (14) Tail rotor Servo Assembly, P/N 70410-06520-044 through -
046.

 (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a critical part
remaining in service beyond its life limit due to previously being
installed on a different helicopter model with higher usage and
flight loads. This condition could result in fatigue failure of a
critical part and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 23, 2013.

 (d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS):
    (i) Insert into the airworthiness limitation section of the
maintenance manual or instructions for continued airworthiness the
component life prorating formula in Section 1.1.3 of Sikorsky
Technical Manual TM 1-70-23AW-2, Change 3, dated April 15, 2012.
    (ii) Using the service life limits in Table 1 to paragraph (e)
of this AD, apply the component life prorating formula and calculate
the new life limit for each specified part. If the number of hours
of a part is unknown, that part cannot be installed on a Sikorsky
Model S-70, S-70A, or S-70C helicopter. Do not calculate a new life
limit for the part where the Model SH-60 life limit is higher than
the life limit on Models S-70, S-70A, and S-70C.

                                            Table 1 to Paragraph (e)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  S-70, S-70A, S-
                  P/N                       Part description        70C Service   UH-60M Service     SH-60B/F
                                                                       life            life        Service life
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38023-10374-041.......................  Spindle and Liner                  8,000           6,400          10,000
                                         Assembly.
70070-10046-055 and -056..............  Main Rotor Hub..........           5,100           3,100         N/A \1\
70102-08105-102.......................  Main Rotor Spindle Nut..           8,000           6,400          10,000
70102-08111-047.......................  Main Rotor Control Horn.    20,000/1,300          10,000         N/A \1\
                                                                   \2\/2,500 \2\
70103-08112-041 and -047..............  Main Rotor Hub..........           5,100           3,100         N/A \1\
70104[dash]08001[dash]044[dash]045....  Rotating Swashplate.....          11,000           4,600           9,600
70351-08186-043.......................  Main Rotor Shaft                  14,000           4,900          16,000
                                         Extension.
70351-38110-043, -044, and -045.......  Main Rotor Gear Box               11,000           4,000           9,000
                                         Housing.
70351-38131-042.......................  Main Rotor Shaft........          17,000           5,200          19,000
70358-06620-101 and -102..............  Output Bevel Gear and              5,000           1,800         N/A \1\
                                         Shaft.
70400-08115-043, -045, -046, and        Left Tie Rod Assembly...          14,000           4,600           6,300
 [dash]047.
70400-08162-042.......................  Forward Bellcrank           14,000/2,500           5,600           7,600
                                         Support Assembly.                   \3\
70400-08166-041.......................  Lateral Servo Bellcrank.          20,000          11,000          14,000
70410-06520-044 through -046..........  Tail Rotor Servo                  15,000          11,000         N/A \1\
                                         Assembly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There is no service life limit listed because the parts on Model SH-60B/F have a different P/N than the
  parts on Models S-70, S-70A, and S-70C.
\2\ For serial number (S/N) 32479930 through 324791859, with CAGE code 60078, the life limit is 1,300 hours TIS.
For S/N A241-07543 through A241-07594, A241[dash]07706 through A241-07755, A241[dash]07768 through A241-07771,
  A241-07800 through A241-07831, R241-00101 through R241-00355, R241-00701 through R241[dash]00966, and R241-
  01001 through R241[dash]01166, the life limit is 2,500 hours TIS.
\3\ For S/N A-367-00001 through A367-00035, with CAGE code 78286, the life limit is 2,500 hours TIS.

    (iii) Record the newly-established life limit of each part on
the part's component log card or equivalent record.
    (2) After establishing the new life limit, replace each part
that has reached or exceeded its new life limit with an airworthy
part before further flight.
    (3) Do not install the following parts on a Model S-70, S-70A,
or S-70C helicopter if they have been previously installed on a
Model UH-60M helicopter:
    (i) Bolt, self retaining, P/N 70103-08801-102;
    (ii) Bifilar, P/N 70107-08400-046; (iii) Aft Bellcrank, P/N
70400-08102-045;
    (iv) Aft Walking Beam Assembly, P/N 70400-08104-048; or
    (v) Close Tolerance Bolt, P/N 70400-26802-102 and -103.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Michael Davison,
Flight Test Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
Massachusetts 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6220 Main Rotor
Hub, 6230 Main Rotor Mast/Swashplate, 6320 Main Rotor Gearbox, 6310
Engine/Transmission Coupling, 6510 Tail Rotor Drive Shaft.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 11, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-17629 Filed 7-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18921-18927]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8179]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851; FRL-9290-6]

Land Disposal Restrictions: Nevada and California; Site Specific
Treatment Variances for Hazardous Selenium Bearing Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final actions to both issue a site-
specific treatment variance to U.S. Ecology Nevada (USEN) in Beatty,
Nevada and to withdraw an existing site-specific treatment variance
issued to Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM) in Kettleman Hills,
California. These actions pertain to the treatment of a hazardous waste
generated by the Owens-Brockway Glass Container Company in Vernon,
California that is unable to meet the concentration-based treatment
standard for selenium established under the Land Disposal Restrictions
program. The site-specific treatment variance issued to USEN provides
an alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/L for selenium as measured
by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. EPA has determined
that the treatment performed by USEN provides the best demonstrated
treatment available for this waste by reducing the potential amount of
selenium released to the environment, while minimizing the total volume
of hazardous waste land disposed.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 6, 2011 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by May 6,
2011. If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the direct
final rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2010-0851, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2010-0851.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (28221T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851. Please include a total of 2 copies.
     Hand Delivery: Please deliver 2 copies to EPA/DC, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 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-RCRA-
2010-0851. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ-Docket Center,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2010-0851, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-
0270. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this
rulemaking, contact Jesse Miller, Materials Recovery and Waste
Management Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (MC
5304 P), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (703) 308-
0522; or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    EPA is publishing this rule as a direct final rule because we view
this action as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. Based on the information and data submitted by the petitioner
for this site-specific treatment variance and the oversight being
provided by the regulatory authorities in the states of Nevada and
California, we do not believe that there will be adverse comments on
this action. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as a proposed rule should EPA receive adverse comments. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further
information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of
this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
    If we do not receive adverse comment, the rule will take effect on
June 6, 2011. Section 3010(b) of RCRA states that rules implementing
subtitle C of RCRA normally take effect six months after promulgation,
but that EPA may provide for a shorter effective date for rules with
which the regulated community does not need six months to come into
compliance. This is such a rule, as the Owens-Brockway Glass Container
Company should be able to transport the waste to USEN for treatment and
disposal in a much shorter period of time.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies only to U.S. Ecology Nevada located in Beatty,
Nevada and to Chemical Waste Management, Inc. located in Kettleman
Hills, California.

C. Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Variances
    B. Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment Standard
    C. Site-Specific Treatment Variance for Selenium-Bearing Waste
II. Basis for This Determination
III. Development of This Variance
    A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition
    B. What Type and How Much Waste Will be Subject to This
Variance?
    C. Description of the Waste Treatment Process
IV. EPA's Reasons for Granting This Site-Specific Treatment Variance
to USEN and Withdrawing the Site-Specific Treatment Variance from
CWM at 40 CFR 268.44
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review.
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Basis for Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Variances

    Under sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the land disposal of hazardous wastes is
prohibited unless such wastes are able to meet the treatment standards
established by EPA. Under section 3004(m) of RCRA, EPA is required to
set ``levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially
diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so
that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.'' EPA

interprets this language to authorize treatment standards based on the
performance of the best demonstrated available technology (BDAT). This
interpretation was upheld by the DC Circuit in Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council v. EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    The Agency recognizes however, that there may be wastes that cannot
be treated to the levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR
268.40) because an individual waste matrix or concentration can be
substantially more difficult to treat than those wastes evaluated in
establishing the treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986).
For such wastes, EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may
seek a treatment variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of
the variance establish an alternative treatment standard for the
particular waste at issue.

B. Basis of the Current Selenium Treatment Standard

    Treatment of selenium poses special difficulties. In particular, it
can be technically challenging to treat wastes containing selenium and
other metals e.g., cadmium, lead and/or chromium because of their
different chemical properties and solubility curves (62 FR 26041, May
12, 1997).
    The current treatment standard for a waste exhibiting the toxicity
characteristic for selenium (RCRA Hazardous Waste D010) is based upon
the performance of stabilization on low concentration selenium wastes.
When the Agency developed the treatment standard for selenium, EPA
believed that wastes containing high concentrations of selenium were
rarely generated and land disposed (59 FR 47980, September 19, 1994).
The Agency also stated that it believed that, for most wastes
containing high concentrations of selenium, recovery of the selenium
would be feasible using recovery technologies currently employed by
copper smelters and copper refining operations (Id.). The Agency
further stated in 1994, that it did not have any performance data for
selenium recovery, but available information indicated that some
recovery of elemental selenium out of certain types of scrap material
and other wastes was practiced in the United States.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because selenium is a non-renewable resource, and because
the wastes in question contain high selenium concentrations, EPA's
preference would be to recover the selenium in an environmentally
sound manner. However, based on information contained in the Mineral
Commodity Summaries 2010 published by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, the amount of domestic production
of secondary selenium is estimated to be very small because most of
the materials eligible for possible secondary smelting (e.g., scrap
xerographic and electronic materials) were exported for recovery of
the contained selenium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1994, the Agency used performance data from the stabilization of
a mineral processing waste that was characteristically hazardous (RCRA
Hazardous Waste D010) to set the national treatment standard for
selenium. At that time, we determined that this was the most difficult
to treat selenium waste. This untreated waste contained up to 700 ppm
total selenium and 3.74 mg/L selenium as measured by the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The resulting post-treatment
levels of selenium in the TCLP leachate were between 0.154 mg/L and
1.80 mg/L, which (after considering the range of treatment process
variability) led to EPA establishing a national treatment standard of
5.7 mg/L for D010 selenium nonwastewaters.\2\ This D010 mineral
processing waste also contained other toxic metals (i.e., arsenic,
cadmium, and lead) above the characteristic levels. The treatment
technology used to establish the selenium levels also resulted in
meeting the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for
these non-selenium metals. The waste to reagent ratios varied from
1:1.3 to 1:2.7 (62 FR 26041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The calculation of the LDR treatment standard was based on a
specific method, sometimes called ``C 99'' which has been used in
other LDR rulemakings. This methodology seeks to account for process
variability (including variability that may be attributed to
sampling and analytical processes). See 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998
and the document, Final--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures and Methodology, USEPA. October 23, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, in the Phase IV final rule, the Agency determined that a
treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L, as measured by the TCLP, continued to
be appropriate for D010 nonwastewaters (63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998). The
Agency also changed the universal treatment standard (UTS) for selenium
nonwastewaters from 0.16 mg/L to 5.7 mg/L TCLP.

C. Site-Specific Treatment Variance for Selenium-Bearing Waste

    On May 26, 1999 (64 FR 28387), EPA granted Chemical Waste
Management, Inc. (CWM) in Kettleman Hills, California a site-specific
treatment variance from the LDR treatment standards for hazardous
selenium-bearing waste generated by the Owens- Brockway Glass Container
Company (Owens-Brockway) at their Vernon, California manufacturing
facility. Under 40 CFR 268.44(o), CWM was allowed to treat the waste to
an alternative treatment standard for selenium of 51 mg/L TCLP with a
waste to reagent ratio of 1 to 2.7. Total selenium concentrations in
the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) dust generated at the Owens-
Brockway facility range from 2,400 mg/kg to 5,700 mg/kg. The untreated
waste has a leachable selenium concentration ranging from 228 mg/L to
440 mg/L TCLP. In addition, the untreated waste has a leachable arsenic
concentration ranging from 3.3 mg/L to 8.6 mg/L TCLP, a leachable
cadmium concentration ranging from 3.9 mg/L to 11.0 mg/L TCLP, and a
leachable lead concentration ranging from <0.10 mg/L to 16.3 mg/L TCLP.
(For a more detailed discussion of EPA's basis for granting the site-
specific treatment variance to CWM, see 64 FR 28387, May 26, 1999.)

II. Basis for This Determination

    Under 40 CFR 268.44, facilities can apply for a site-specific
treatment variance in cases where a waste that is generated under
conditions specific to only one site cannot be treated to the specified
LDR treatment standards. In such cases, the generator(s) or the
treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or to EPA's
designated representative, (in this case the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency Response) for a site-specific variance
from a treatment standard. The applicant for a site-specific variance
must demonstrate that, because the physical or chemical properties of
the waste differ significantly from the waste analyzed in developing
the treatment standard, the waste cannot be treated to the specified
levels or by the specified methods. There are other grounds for
obtaining variances, but this is the only provision relevant to this
action.

III. Development of This Variance

A. U.S. Ecology Nevada Petition

    On September 16, 2008, U.S. Ecology Nevada (USEN) submitted a
petition requesting a site-specific treatment variance from the LDR
treatment standards for hazardous selenium-bearing waste generated by
Owens-Brockway at their Vernon, California manufacturing facility. USEN
requested an alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/L as measured by
the TCLP for the selenium contained in the waste. This alternative
treatment standard was achieved with a waste to reagent ratio of 1 to
0.45, using 20% ferrous sulfate,

15% quick lime and 10% sodium sulfide flakes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The selenium concentrations used to calculate the
alternative treatment standard were (in mg/L TCLP) 49.34, 51.39,
49.39, 43.91, and 54.34. The most effective treatment recipe was
determined using a 50 gram sample of waste where reagents were
listed as a percent of waste sample weight. For example, 20% ferrous
sulfate, 15% quick lime, and 10% sodium sulfide flakes would measure
out as 10 grams of ferrous sulfate, 7.5 grams of quick lime, and 5
grams of sodium sulfide flakes for a total of 22.5 grams of total
reagent. The waste to reagent ratio was then calculated by dividing
22.5 by 50 to get a waste to reagent ratios of 1:0.45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What type and how much waste will be subject to this variance?

    Owens-Brockway operates a glass manufacturing facility that ESP
dust. The ESP dust is generated by the glass furnace air emissions
control system and is hazardous due to its high concentrations of
leachable arsenic, cadmium, lead, and selenium. The corresponding EPA
hazardous waste codes are D004, D006, D008, and D010, respectively. The
waste generated by Owens-Brockway does not meet the LDR treatment
standards and requires treatment prior to land disposal. As discussed
previously, the physical properties and the chemical composition of the
ESP dust generated by Owens-Brockway are considerably different from
the waste used to establish the current LDR treatment standard for
selenium. The Agency set the national treatment standard for
nonwastewaters using performance data from the stabilization of a
characteristically hazardous mineral processing waste, which the Agency
determined at the time to be the most difficult to treat selenium
waste.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The untreated waste had a total selenium concentration of up
to 700 ppm selenium, with a leachable selenium concentration of 3.74
mg/L TCLP. The post treatment levels of selenium were between 0.154
mg/L and 1.80 mg/L TCLP, which led the Agency to establish the
treatment standard of 5.7 mg/L TCLP for nonwastewaters. See 63 FR
28556, May 26, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the petition submitted by USEN, the quantity of ESP
dust shipped off-site for management as a hazardous waste ranges from
50 to 100 tons per year.\5\ The ESP dust, as generated, contains fine
particle matter resulting from the combustion of natural gas and
particulate matter generated by the dry scrubber used to control
SOX emissions. The material is normally returned to the
process as a substitute raw material; however, there are circumstances
when it cannot be used again due to the high levels of hazardous
contaminants, its physical state or excess quantity. In these
situations, the ESP dust is managed as a RCRA hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ According to information obtained from USEPA's RCRA Biennial
Report, in 2005, approximately 108 tons of hazardous waste
identified as D010 was shipped from Owens-Brockway's Vernon facility
to the CWM facility in Kettleman Hills, California, while in 2007,
almost 61 tons of D010 waste was shipped to CWM in Kettleman Hills,
California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Description of the Waste Treatment Process

    USEN will stabilize the Owens-Brockway ESP dust using a combination
of reagents and techniques. These reagents include ferrous sulfate
(FeSO4), quick lime (CaO), and sodium sulfide (Na2S). USEN typically
uses a combination of hydroxide and sulfide precipitation to treat high
concentration wastes. Most often, an alkaline reagent (quick lime) is
used to raise the solution pH to lower the solubility of the metal
constituents and start the precipitation process.
    As noted previously, (see 64 FR 28387, May 26, 1999), EPA concluded
that it is difficult, if not impossible, to optimize the treatment for
selenium when other metals are being treated, because the selenium
solubility curve differs from that of most other metals. Thus,
successfully stabilizing other metals generally means that treatment
for selenium cannot be optimized. As further pointed out in the
petition submitted by USEN, selenium's minimum solubility is in the
range of 6.5 to 7.5, while other characteristic metals have a minimum
solubility in the pH range of 8 to 12. In simple terms, if you maximize
the stabilization treatment recipe to treat arsenic, cadmium, and lead,
the selenium becomes soluble and will not meet the treatment standard
(i.e., fail the TCLP). If you maximize the recipe to treat selenium,
the other metals will not meet the treatment standard.
    USEN has been unsuccessful in developing a treatment recipe that
can achieve all the LDR treatment standards applicable to this waste
(e.g., arsenic, chromium, lead, and selenium). USEN tested and
submitted performance data on 135 treatment recipes on five different
ESP dust samples using a combination of reagents and concentrations of
reagents. USEN was unable to achieve the LDR treatment standard of 5.7
mg/L selenium using any of the 135 treatment recipes. The average post
treatment selenium TCLP value achieved was 47 mg/L TCLP, which is
approximately a 90% reduction in soluble selenium. The treatment to an
average of 47 mg/L TCLP was the result of a recipe with a waste to
reagent ratio of 1:0.45. With a variability factor applied to the
average TCLP selenium value, the final treatment standard would be 59
mg/L TCLP.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The calculation of the LDR treatment standard was based on a
specific method, sometimes called ``C 99'' which has been used in
other LDR rulemakings. This methodology seeks to account for process
variability (including variability that may be attributed to
sampling and analytical processes). See 63 FR 28556, May 26, 1998
and the document, Final--Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Procedures and Methodology, USEPA. October 23, 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the data and information provided to the Agency as part of
their site-specific treatment variance petition, EPA was able to
perform an analysis which shows that the USEN treatment process would
generate a lower volume of waste material, post treatment, coupled with
a lower potential for selenium being released to the environment. Mass
balance calculations performed by the Agency indicated that the
treatment conducted by USEN has the potential to release between 3.88
to 7.76 kilograms (8.54 to 17.1 pounds) of selenium per year to the
environment. This range is a result of Owens-Brockway generating
between 50 and 100 tons of waste annually. (As we discuss in the next
section, CWM, even with a lower alternative treatment standard, has the
potential to release greater amounts of selenium per year to the
environment. This is due to the higher waste to reagent ratio used to
stabilize the waste material.\7\) As such, the Agency has determined
that USEN has optimized its stabilization recipe by reducing the amount
of selenium potentially released to the environment and minimizing the
amount of reagent that must be used to achieve this result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ With the majority of the treatment recipes tested, USEN was
able to meet the LDRs for all the other RCRA metals, including any
underlying hazardous constituents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. EPA's Reasons for Granting This Site-Specific Treatment Variance to
USEN and Withdrawing the Site-Specific Variance From CWM at 40 CFR
268.44

    EPA has reviewed USEN's petition for a site-specific treatment
variance from the LDR treatment standards for hazardous selenium-
bearing waste generated by Owens-Brockway and is granting a variance
from the selenium treatment standard from 5.7 mg/L TCLP to an
alternative treatment standard of 59 mg/L TCLP, with the condition that
USEN does not exceed a waste to reagent ratio of 1:0.45. Concurrently,
EPA is withdrawing the site-specific variance granted to CWM that
established an alternative treatment standard of 51 mg/L TCLP for this
same waste (69 FR 6567, February 11, 2004).

    EPA has determined that USEN, despite having a higher selenium
treatment standard based on selenium concentration, does, in fact, have
the potential to release less selenium in a land disposal environment
by utilizing a much more environmentally favorable waste to reagent
ratio. As such, the Agency believes that the treatment performed by
USEN is the best treatment available for this waste. CWM uses a waste
to reagent ratio of 1:2.7, while USEN uses a waste to reagent ration of
1:0.45. Consequently, the Agency has determined that a treatment
standard of 59 mg/L TCLP for this selenium-bearing waste is more
protective of human health and the environment, due to the fact that it
generates a lower volume of waste material, with a much lower leaching
potential. In particular, the treatment process employed by CWM has the
potential to release between 8.56 to 17.11 kilograms (18.8 to 37.69
pounds) of selenium per year to the environment, whereas USEN has the
potential to release 3.88 to 7.76 kilograms (8.54 to 17.1 pounds) of
selenium per year to the environment. Furthermore, utilizing the waste
to reagent ratio of 1:2.7 would dispose of between 185 and 370 tons of
waste to land disposal per year, whereas utilizing the waste to reagent
ratio of 1:0.45 would dispose of only 72.5 to 145 tons of waste to land
disposal per year.
    Based on the foregoing, the Agency is granting USEN's petition for
a site-specific treatment variance for the ESP dust generated at the
Owens-Brockway glass manufacturing plant in Vernon, California. We are
also withdrawing the portion of CWM's site-specific treatment variance
that pertains to its management of the Owens-Brockway waste, i.e., 51
mg/L TCLP for selenium-bearing D010 waste.
    Technology-based treatment standards, whether adopted by generally
applicable rule or through a variance to the generally applicable rule,
serve as the measure of when threats posed by land disposal of the
hazardous waste are ``minimized,'' as required by RCRA section 3004(m).
See 55 FR 6640 (February 26, 1990). Thus, EPA has typically limited the
standards adopted by a variance to a single standard. See 70 FR 44505
(August 3, 2005). We are continuing this practice here by rescinding
the current variance granted to CWM (69 FR 6567, February 11, 2004).
The Agency has determined that the existing treatment standard is less
stringent than the standard we would now be granting, both with respect
to potential concentrations of selenium released to the environment and
also the waste to reagent ratios. Under these circumstances, EPA
believes that threats posed by land disposal are minimized by use of
the treatment process utilized by USEN.
    Please note that the waste already disposed of pursuant to the
standard established in the original treatment variance granted to CWM
would be lawfully disposed, and would not have to be retreated if the
standard in the variance were altered or lapsed. This variance results
in amending 40 CFR 268.44(o) to allow hazardous selenium-bearing waste
generated by Owens-Brockway in Vernon, California, with the RCRA
hazardous waste identification code of D010, to be treated to an
alternate treatment standard of 59 mg/L TCLP by USEN with the condition
that the waste to reagent ratio not exceed 1:0.45.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action does two things: (1) Grants a site-specific treatment
variance to USEN for the treatment of hazardous selenium-bearing waste
under RCRA's LDR program; and (2) withdraws an existing site-specific
treatment variance to CWM. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR 268.42 and .44 under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
and has assigned OMB control number 2050-0085. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This site-specific treatment variance does not create any new
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste that applies to only one facility, USEN located in
Beatty, Nevada and withdraws an existing site-specific treatment
variance for the same waste at CWM located in Kettleman Hills,
California. Therefore, we hereby certify that this rule will not add
any new regulatory requirements to small entities. This rule,
therefore, does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action would not impose
any new duties on the State's hazardous waste program. EPA has
determined, therefore, that this rule would not contain regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments in that the authority for this action exists with the
Federal government. Therefore, this action is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. This rule will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This action does two things: (1)
Grants a site-specific treatment variance applicable to one facility,
and (2) withdraws a site-specific treatment variance for that same
waste at another facility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 would not apply
to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action would not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action is a
site-specific treatment variance that applies to only one facility,
while withdrawing a site-specific treatment variance for that same
waste at another facility. Neither facilities are tribal facilities or
located on tribal lands. Thus, Executive Order 13175 would not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health
or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it would not
establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or
safety risks.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it would
not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it increases the level of protection
provided to human health and the environment because of a reduced level
of selenium being landfilled than currently occurs. The treatment
variance applies to a specific hazardous selenium-bearing waste that
will be treated in an existing, permitted RCRA facility, ensuring
protection to human health and the environment. Therefore, the rule
will not result in any disproportionately negative impacts on minority
or low-income communities relative to affluent or non-minority
communities.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule, when
finalized and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A
Major rule cannot take effect until June 6, 2011. This action is not a
``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste, Variances.

    Dated: March 31, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

0
2. In Sec.  268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Owens Brockway Glass Container Company, Vernon, CA''
and revising footnote 7 to read as follows:

Sec.  268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

                                         Table--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wastewaters                      Nonwastewaters
                                   Waste                        Regulated hazardous --------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility name \1\ and address     code         See also           constituent                                          Concentration  (mg/
                                                                                Concentration  (mg/l)     Notes             kg)             Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Owens Brockway Glass Container       D010  Standards under      Selenium...........  NA...................  NA........  59 mg/L TCLP........  NA
 Company, Vernon, CA \6\,\7\.               Sec.   268.40.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * *
\6\ Alternative D010 selenium standard only applies to electrostatic precipitator dust generated during glass manufacturing operations.
\7\ D010 waste generated by this facility must be treated and disposed by U.S. Ecology Nevada at their RCRA permitted facility in Beatty, Nevada. The
  treatment variance is conditioned on the waste to reagent ratio not exceeding 1 to 0.45.
* * * * *
Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 2011-8179 Filed 4-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12547-12548]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05261]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0398]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
11 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective April 6, 2015. Comments must be
received on or before April 8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-2008-
0398], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-year period if it
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is
equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 11 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 11 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:
Michael L. Ayers (AL)

Paul V. Daluisio (NY)
Tracy A. Doty (TN)
Matthew A. Ericson (WI)
Charles W. Hillyer (OH)
Stephen R. Jackson (WY)
Darrel R. Martin (MD)
Pahl M. Olson (WI)
James L. Rooney (WA)
James E. Russell (AZ)
Forrest L. Wright (AL)
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 11 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (74 FR 7097; 74 FR 15584; 76 FR 15361; 78 FR 16761). Each
of these 11 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has
submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues
to meet the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the
vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of
safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the
past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision
exemption requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for
predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in
interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the
exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2008-0398), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of
these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing
address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your
document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding
your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2008-0398'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may change this notice based on your
comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2008-0398'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next,
click ``Open Docket Folder'' button choose the document listed to
review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: March 2, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-05261 Filed 3-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43568]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15743]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0278 FRL-9948-59-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Baton Rouge Nonattainment Area; Base Year Emissions Inventory for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to address the
emissions inventory (EI) requirement for the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area (BRNA) for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires an EI
for all ozone nonattainment areas. The inventory includes emission data
for Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). EPA is approving the revisions pursuant to section 110 and part
D of the CAA and EPA's regulations.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 4, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EPA-R06-OAR-2016-0278,
at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
additional information on how to submit comments see the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located
in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nevine Salem,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a
direct rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this
action no further activity is contemplated. If the EPA receives
relevant adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and
all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final
rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: June 22, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-15743 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P