[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65910-65912]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26318]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 22

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0551; FRL-9914-33-OECA]
RIN 2020-AA50

Consolidated Rules of Practice Governing the Administrative
Assessment of Civil Penalties, Issuance of Compliance or Corrective
Action Orders, and the Revocation, Termination or Suspension of Permits

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule revises the scope of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Consolidated Rules of Practice governing the
administrative assessment of civil penalties to encompass the
assessment of civil penalties under the air pollution control
provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships. The EPA has not
previously established adjudicatory procedures for the assessment of
civil penalties under that statute. Establishment of such procedures
will provide for the efficient and effective adjudication, including
administrative appeals, of such proceedings consistent with statutory
requirements. This proposed rule also revises the address for the
Environmental Appeals Board to reflect its relocation to the William
Jefferson Clinton East Building.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register,
we are making this same amendment as a direct final rule. If we receive
no adverse comment, the direct final rule will go into effect and we
will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0551, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Environmental Protection Agency, OECA Docket, Mail-Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    5. Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. Attention Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0551. 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-OECA-
2014-0551. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to the SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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 www.regulations.gov or at the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20004. The Public
Reading Room 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OECA
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meetu Kaul, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William
Jefferson Clinton Building South, Room 1117B, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Mail Code 2242A, Washington, DC 20460, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    The EPA is proposing to revise the scope of the EPA's Consolidated
Rules of Practice governing the administrative assessment of civil
penalties to encompass the assessment of civil penalties under the air
pollution control provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from
Ships. Establishment of such procedures will provide for the

efficient and effective adjudication, including administrative appeals,
of such proceedings consistent with statutory requirements.
    We are publishing a direct final rule in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this as
a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We explain
our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.
The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the
direct final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
this Federal Register.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will publish
timely notice in the Federal Register to withdraw the direct final
rule. We will address all public comments in any subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. We do not intend to provide 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.

II. Does this action apply to me?

    This action may affect parties involved in EPA administrative
adjudicatory proceedings for the assessment of civil penalties under
section 1908(b) of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C.
1908(b)). You may direct questions regarding the applicability of this
action as noted in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

III. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI Do not submit this information to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR Part 2.
    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments
    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Orders 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and 13563:
Improving Regulation and Regulatory 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 Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). This action will apply the Rules
of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings for the assessment of civil
penalties by the EPA under its Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships
authority, and will revise the mailing and hand delivery address for
the EAB to reflect the Board's relocation.

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. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities, small entity
is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not
impose any additional requirements on small entities. This rule will
apply the Rules of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings for the
assessment of civil penalties by the EPA under its Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships authority, and will revise the mailing and hand
delivery address for the EAB to reflect the Board's relocation.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action 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. The purpose of this
action is to apply the Rules of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings
for the assessment of civil penalties by the EPA under its Act to
Prevent Pollution from Ships authority, and to revise the mailing and
hand delivery address for the EAB to reflect the Board's relocation.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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 will

apply the Rules of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings for the
assessment of civil penalties by the EPA under its Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships authority, and will revise the mailing and hand
delivery address for the EAB to reflect the Board's relocation. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action will
apply the Rules of Practice to adjudicatory proceedings for the
assessment of civil penalties by the EPA under its Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships authority, and will revise the mailing and hand
delivery address for the EAB to reflect the Board's relocation. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer 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 the 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 the 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, the
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 (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 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.
    The 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 does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This action will apply the Rules of Practice to
adjudicatory proceedings for the assessment of civil penalties by the
EPA under its Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships authority, and will
revise the mailing and hand delivery address for the EAB to reflect the
Board's relocation.

V. Statutory Authority

    Statutory authority for this proposed action comes from sections
1903 and 1908 of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33
U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 22

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste,
Penalties, Pesticides and pests, Poison prevention, Water pollution
control.

    Dated: October 23, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-26318 Filed 11-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58078-58081]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22971]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0734; FRL-9727-4]

Withdrawal of Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
California; San Joaquin Valley; 1-Hour and 8-Hour Ozone Extreme Area
Plan Elements

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to withdraw a March 8, 2010 final action
approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to provide for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in the San Joaquin Valley extreme ozone nonattainment area.
This proposed action is in response to a decision issued by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 671 F.3d
955 (9th Cir. 2012)) remanding EPA's approval of these SIP revisions.
In addition, EPA is proposing to withdraw our approval of a portion of
a March 1, 2012 final rule approving SIP revisions submitted by
California to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the San Joaquin Valley. The portion of this final action for which EPA
is proposing to withdraw its approval addressed requirements regarding
emissions growth caused by growth in vehicle miles traveled under the
CAA. This proposed action is in response to a decision issued by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Association of Irritated
Residents, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), as amended Jan. 27, 2012),
rejecting EPA's interpretation of the CAA, which had provided the basis
for this portion of EPA's March 1, 2012 final rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0734, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Frances Wicher, (AIR-2), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, and
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to
EPA, your email address will be automatically captured and included as
part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comments due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this proposed action is
available electronically on the www.regulations.gov Web site and in
hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105. While all documents in the docket are listed in the
index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available at either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frances Wicher, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2),<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan
    A. Background
    B. EPA's Proposed Action
II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
    A. Background
    B. EPA's Proposed Action
III. Public Comment
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. San Joaquin Valley 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan

A. Background

    On March 8, 2010, EPA fully approved state implementation plan
(SIP) revisions submitted by the State of California to provide for
attainment of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley (SJV)
extreme ozone nonattainment area. 75 FR 10420. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) had submitted these SIP revisions to satisfy the
applicable requirements of part D, title I of the CAA following EPA's
reclassification of the SJV area from severe to extreme nonattainment
for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS effective May 17, 2004. 69 FR 20550 (April
16, 2004).\1\ The SIP revisions that EPA approved consisted of the
following four submissions: (1) The ``Extreme Ozone Attainment
Demonstration Plan,'' adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or District) in October 2004 and
submitted by CARB on November 15, 2004 (2004 SIP); (2) amendments to
the 2004 SIP adopted by the District in October 2005 and submitted by
CARB on March 6, 2006 to, among other things, amend the control
strategy (2005 Amendments); (3) the ``Clarifications Regarding the 2004
Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan,'' adopted by the District
in August 2008 and submitted by CARB on September 5, 2008 to provide
updates to the 2004 SIP related to reasonably available control
technology (RACT) measures adopted by the SJVUAPCD, the rate-of-
progress (ROP) demonstration, and contingency measures (2008
Clarifications); and (4) relevant portions of the ``2003 State and
Federal Strategy for the California State Implementation Plan,''
adopted by CARB in October 2003 and submitted to EPA on January 9, 2004
(2003 State Strategy), which identify CARB's regulatory agenda to
reduce ozone and particulate matter in California and include statewide
control measures applicable in the SJV. The 2003 State Strategy, as
modified by CARB's resolution adopting it and CARB's resolution
adopting the 2004 SIP, also includes State commitments to reduce
emissions in the SJV area by specified amounts. The 2004 SIP relies in
part on the 2003 State Strategy for the reductions needed to
demonstrate attainment and ROP for the 1-hour ozone standard in the SJV
area. See 75 FR 10420, 10421 (March 8, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA established a new 8-hour ozone standard in 1997 (62 FR
38856 (July 18, 1997)) and subsequently revoked the 1-hour ozone
standard effective June 15, 2005 in the SJV (40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR
23951 (April 30, 2004) and 70 FR 44470 (August 3, 2005)). However,
the SJV area remains subject to certain CAA requirements for the 1-
hour ozone standard through the anti-backsliding provisions in EPA's
implementing regulations. See 40 CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 51.900(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These submittals, which we refer to collectively as the ``2004 1-
Hour Ozone Plan'' or ``Plan,'' contained the following required
elements of a 1-hour ozone plan for the SJV: (1) A rate of progress
(ROP) demonstration as required by CAA sections 172(c)(2) and
182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures as required by CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) an attainment demonstration as required by
CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and 181(a); (4) attainment contingency
measures as required by CAA section 172(c)(9); (5) a reasonably
available control measures (RACM) demonstration as required by CAA
section 172(c)(1); (6) provisions for clean fuels/clean technologies
for boilers as required by CAA 182(e)(3); and (7) vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) provisions as required by CAA section 182(d)(1)(A),
including the requirement regarding transportation control strategies
and transportation control measures sufficient to offset any growth in
emissions from growth in VMT or numbers of vehicle trips in the SJV
area (VMT emissions offset requirement).
    The Sierra Club and several environmental groups filed a petition
for review of EPA's March 8, 2010 approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone
Plan, arguing, among other things, that EPA's action was arbitrary and
capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it did
not take into account new emissions inventory data that California had
submitted subsequent to its submittal of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan. On
January 20, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the petition with respect to this issue, holding that EPA's
failure to consider the new emissions data rendered the Agency's action
arbitrary and capricious under the APA and remanding EPA's action, in
its entirety, for further proceedings consistent with the decision. See
Sierra Club, et. al. v. EPA, 671 F.3d 955 (9th Cir. 2012) (Sierra
Club). The court declined to reach the other issues raised in the
petition for review.

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    Consistent with the Sierra Club court's remand, EPA is proposing to
withdraw its March 8, 2010 approval of the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan (75
FR 10420) in its entirety. This withdrawal, if finalized, would have
the effect of removing the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan from the applicable
California SIP and deleting the provisions in 40 CFR 52.220(c) where
EPA's approval of the Plan is currently codified. See 40 CFR
52.220(c)(317)(i)(B)(1), (c)(339)(i)(B)(1) and (ii)(C),
(c)(348)(i)(A)(2), and (c)(369)-(371). The District has stated its
intent to withdraw the Plan from EPA's consideration following EPA's
withdrawal of approval, and to submit a new 1-hour ozone plan to EPA by
June 30, 2013. See letter dated July 10, 2012, from Seyed Sadredin,
Executive Director/APCO, SJVUAPCD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, Re: ``San Joaquin Valley 1-hour
Ozone Plan.'' Consistent with these representations, we understand that
California intends to promptly withdraw the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan from
EPA's consideration if EPA finalizes today's proposal. Accordingly, EPA
is not proposing additional action on the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan at
this time.
    As a consequence of EPA's reclassification of the SJV to extreme
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard in 2004, California was
obligated to submit plan revisions for the SJV area meeting CAA and
regulatory requirements for extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas.
Because California will be in default of these obligations should it
withdraw the Plan from EPA's consideration, following such withdrawal
EPA will promptly issue a finding of failure to submit pursuant to CAA
section 179(a)(1), effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
This finding would trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179
unless the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of such finding and
would also trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) unless California
submits and we approve SIP revisions that correct the deficiency within
two years of such finding. Should California fail to promptly withdraw
the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan upon finalization of today's proposal, EPA
plans to commence a new rulemaking addressing the approvability of the
2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan.
    If California withdraws the 2004 1-Hour Ozone Plan, the plan
elements under subparts 1 and 2 of part D, title I of the CAA for which
the State will no longer have a valid submission and thus would be
required to submit for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS for the SJV area are as
follows: (1) A ROP demonstration meeting the requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 182(c)(2); (2) ROP contingency measures meeting
the requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9); (3) an
attainment

demonstration meeting the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(2)(A) and
172(a)(2); (4) attainment contingency measures meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 172(c)(9); (5) a reasonably available control measures
(RACM) demonstration meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(1);
(6) provisions satisfying the requirements for clean fuels/clean
technologies for boilers in CAA 182(e)(3); and (7) provisions
satisfying the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provisions of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A), including the VMT emissions offset requirement. See 40
CFR 51.905(a)(1) and 51.900(f); see also 75 FR 10420, 10436-37.

II. VMT Emissions Offset Requirement for 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard

A. Background

    On March 1, 2012, EPA fully approved SIP revisions submitted by
California to provide for attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan).\2\
77 FR 12652 (March 1, 2012). This final rule, which was signed by the
Regional Administrator on December 15, 2011, included a determination
that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfied the VMT emissions offset
requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A).\3\ 77 FR at 12670. Although
the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan does not contain a specific demonstration to
address the VMT emissions offset requirement, EPA concluded, based on
the Agency's then-current interpretation of CAA section 182(d)(1)(A),
that California was not required to include additional transportation
control strategies and transportation control measures to offset growth
in emissions from growth in VMT in the SJV area for purposes of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS because the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan demonstrated
that both volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides emissions from
on-road mobile sources declined steadily over the entire period covered
by the plan. 76 FR 57846, 57863 (September 16, 2011) (proposed rule)
and 77 FR 12652, at 12666 and 12670 (March 1, 2012) (final rule).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For a more detailed description of this SIP, see 76 FR
57846, 57847 (September 16, 2011).
    \3\ Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act states as follows:
    Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State shall submit a
revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable
transportation control strategies and transportation control
measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle
miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to
attain reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in
combination with other emission reduction requirements of this
subpart, to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and
(c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissions
reduction requirements). The State shall consider measures specified
in section 7408(f) of this title, and choose from among and
implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment with
the national ambient air quality standards; in considering such
measures, the State should ensure adequate access to downtown, other
commercial, and residential areas and should avoid measures that
increase or related emissions and congestion rather than reduce
them.
    \4\ As explained in these rulemakings, EPA has historically
interpreted CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) to allow areas to meet the
requirement by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles
decline each year through the attainment year. See 57 FR 13498, at
13521-15323 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in EPA's proposed and final rules, in Association of
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011) (AIR), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) requires states to adopt, among other things,
transportation control measures and strategies whenever, due to growth
in VMT, vehicle emissions are projected to be higher than they would
have been had VMT not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions
are actually decreasing. 76 FR 57846, 57863 and 77 FR 12652 at fn. 4.
At the time of signature of the final rule approving the 2007 8-Hour
Ozone Plan, December 15, 2011, the court had not yet issued its mandate
in the AIR case and EPA had not adopted the court's interpretation for
the reasons set forth in the Agency's petition for rehearing of the
court's ruling on the VMT emissions offset requirement, pending a final
decision by the court. Id. Accordingly, notwithstanding adverse
comments on EPA's proposal with respect to this issue, EPA proceeded to
fully approve the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan as satisfying the VMT
emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) on the basis
of EPA's then-current interpretation of this requirement. On January
27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied EPA's
petition for rehearing in AIR and issued an amended opinion. The
mandate issued on February 13, 2012. See Association of Irritated
Residents, et al., v. EPA, Nos. 09-71383 and 09-71404 (consolidated),
632 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January 27, 2012,
686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012.
    EPA's final rule approving the 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan was published
on March 1, 2012 (77 FR 12652). Shortly thereafter, several
environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit
challenging that approval. Committee for a Better Arvin et al. v. EPA,
No. 12-71332.

B. EPA's Proposed Action

    As noted above, the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's prior
interpretation of the VMT emissions offset requirement in section
182(d)(1)(A), under which we had allowed states to demonstrate
compliance through submittal of aggregate motor vehicle emissions
estimates showing year-over-year declines in such emissions. This
interpretation formed the basis for EPA's determination that the 2007
8-Hour Ozone Plan satisfied the VMT emissions offset requirement. In
response to the court's ruling in AIR, we are proposing to withdraw our
March 1, 2012 determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP satisfies
the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA section 182(d)(1)(A)
because it is predicated on an interpretation of section 182(d)(1)(A)
that has been rejected by the Ninth Circuit. The 2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan
fails to identify, compared to a baseline assuming no VMT growth, the
level of increased emissions resulting solely from VMT growth and to
show how such increased emissions have been offset through adoption and
implementation of transportation control strategies and transportation
control measures. This withdrawal would be limited to our conclusion
with respect to the VMT emissions offset requirement and would not
affect any other element of our March 1, 2012 action on the 2007 8-Hour
Ozone SIP.
    Because EPA's determination that the 2007 8-Hour Ozone SIP
satisfied the VMT emissions offset requirement was made in the absence
of any such demonstration submitted by the State, California will be in
default of its obligation to submit a SIP revision satisfying this
requirement if EPA finalizes the withdrawal of its determination that
the obligation has been met. Therefore, simultaneously with a final
action to withdraw our previous determination that the 2007 8-Hour
Ozone Plan satisfies the VMT emissions offset requirement in CAA
section 182(d)(1)(A), EPA intends to issue a finding that California
has failed to submit a SIP revision to address this requirement, which
would be effective upon publication in the Federal Register. This
finding would trigger mandatory sanctions under CAA section 179 unless
the deficiency is corrected within 18 months of such finding and would
also trigger an obligation on EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) under CAA section 110(c) unless California
submits and we approve a SIP revision that corrects the

deficiency within two years of such finding.

III. Public Comment

    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. The deadline and instructions for submission of comments
are provided in the ``Date'' and ``Addresses'' sections at the
beginning of this preamble.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action merely proposes to withdraw previous EPA actions, or
portions thereof, on SIP revisions submitted by California to provide
for attainment of ozone standards in the San Joaquin Valley. As such it
does not propose to impose additional requirements on any entity. For
that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993));
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999));
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885
(April 23, 1997));
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001));
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)).

In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000),
because the SIP does not apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
EPA Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2012-22971 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 27061]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0422]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Information From United States Firms
and Processors That Export to the European Community

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Information From United States
Firms and Processors That Export to the European Community'' has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of November 23, 2010
(75 FR 71444), the Agency announced that the proposed information
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44
U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0320.
The approval expires on February 28, 2014. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: May 4, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-11360 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 80)]
[Notices]
[Page 22183-22184]
[DOCID:fr24ap08-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 12d3-1, SEC File No. 270-504, OMB Control No. 3235-0561.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a
request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Section 12(d)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C.
80a) generally prohibits registered investment companies (``funds''),
and companies controlled by funds, from purchasing securities issued by
a registered investment adviser, broker, dealer, or underwriter
(``securities-related businesses''). Rule 12d3-1 (``Exemption of
acquisitions of securities issued by persons engaged in securities
related businesses'' (17 CFR 270.12d3-1)) permits a fund to invest up
to five percent of its assets in securities of an issuer deriving more
than fifteen percent of its gross revenues from securities-related
businesses, but a fund may not rely on rule 12d3-1 to acquire
securities of its own investment adviser or any affiliated person of
its own investment adviser.
    A fund may, however, rely on an exemption in rule 12d3-1 to acquire
securities issued by its subadvisers in circumstances in which the
subadviser would have little ability to take advantage of the fund,
because it is not in a position to direct the fund's securities
purchases. The exemption in rule 12d3-1 is available if (i) the
subadviser is not, and is not an affiliated person of, an investment
adviser that provides advice with respect to the portion of the fund
that is acquiring the securities, and (ii) the advisory contracts of
the subadviser, and any subadviser that is advising the purchasing
portion of the fund, prohibit them from consulting with each other
concerning securities transactions of the fund, and limit their
responsibility in providing advice with respect to discrete portions of
the fund's portfolio.
    The Commission staff estimates that 3,583 portfolios, of
approximately 649 fund complexes, use the services of one or more
subadvisers. Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that it requires approximately 6 hours to draft and
execute revised subadvisory contracts allowing funds and subadvisers to
rely on the exemptions in rule 12d3-1.\1\ The staff assumes that all
existing funds amended their advisory contracts following amendments to
rule 12d3-1 in 2002 that conditioned certain exemptions upon these
contractual alterations, and therefore there is no continuing burden
for those funds.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rules 12d3-1, 10f-3, 17a-10, and 17e-1 require virtually
identical modifications to fund advisory contracts. The Commission
staff assumes that funds would rely equally on the exemptions in
these rules, and therefore the burden hours associated with the
required contract modifications should be apportioned equally among
the four rules.
    \2\ We assume that funds formed after 2002 that intended to rely
on rule 12d3-1would have included the contract provision in their
initial subadvisory contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that
approximately 600 fund portfolios enter into subadvisory agreements
each year.\3\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that

it will require approximately 3 attorney hours \4\ to draft and execute
additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in order for funds and
subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in rule 12d3-1.
Because these additional clauses are identical to the clauses that a
fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts to rely on
rules 10f-3, 17a-10, and 17e-1, and because we believe that funds that
use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we apportion this 3
hour time burden equally to all four rules. Therefore, we estimate that
the burden allocated to rule 12d3-1 for this contract change would be
0.75 hours.\5\ Assuming that all 600 funds that enter into new
subadvisory contracts each year make the modification to their contract
required by the rule, we estimate that the rule's contract modification
requirement will result in 450 burden hours annually, with an
associated cost of approximately $131,400.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The use of subadvisers has grown rapidly over the last
several years, with approximately 600 portfolios that use
subadvisers registering between December 2005 and December 2006.
Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that 31
percent of funds are advised by subadvisers.
    \4\ The Commission staff's estimates concerning the wage rates
for attorney time are based on salary information for the securities
industry compiled by the Securities Industry Association. The $292
per hour figure for an attorney is from the SIA Report on Management
& Professional Earnings in the Securities Industry 2006, modified to
account for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account
for bonuses, firm size, employee benefits and overhead.
    \5\ This estimate is based on the following calculation (3 hours
/ 4 rules = .75 hours).
    \6\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
(0.75 hours x 600 portfolios = 450 burden hours); ($292 per hour x
450 hours = $131,400 total cost).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of
information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying
on rule 12d3-1. Responses will not be kept confidential. An agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Alex--T.--
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    Dated: April 18, 2008.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-8927 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 90836]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ17-4-000]

City of Pasadena, California; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on December 5, 2016, City Pasadena, California
submitted its tariff filing: City of Pasadena, California 2017
Transmission Revenue Balancing Account Adjustment Update to be
effective 1/1/2017.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 27, 2016.

    Dated: December 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-30130 Filed 12-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 55692]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17553]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R08-SFUND-2023-0334; FRL: 11151-02-R8]

Administrative Settlement Agreement for Response Action by Bona
Fide Prospective Purchaser, Central City/Clear Creek Superfund Site,
Four Points Funding, LLC, Clear Creek County, Colorado; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice, correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice
in the Federal Register on August 1, 2023, requesting comments on a
prospective administrative settlement agreement for response action
between the United States, the State of Colorado, and Four Points
Funding, LLC, at the Central City/Clear Creek Superfund Site in Clear
Creek County, Colorado. This notice corrects errors contained in the
document.

ADDRESSES: The proposed agreement and additional background information
relating to the agreement will be available upon request and will be
posted at https://www.epa.gov/superfund/centralcity. Comments are still
being accepted and requests for an electronic copy of the proposed
agreement should be addressed to Crystal Kotowski-Edmunds, Enforcement
Specialist, Superfund and Emergency Management Division, Environmental
Protection Agency-Region 8, Mail Code 8SEM-PAC, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202, or telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
address: [email protected] and should reference the Central City/
Clear Creek Superfund Site.
    You may also send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
SFUND-2022-0281 to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Kotowski-Edmunds, Superfund
and Emergency Management Division, Cost Recovery and Liability Analysis
Section, 4224, Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Ave.,
Denver, CO 80202; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2023, at 88 FR 50149, in FR
Doc. 2023-16219, on page 50149:
    1. In the second column, in the heading, correct the ``Agency
Docket Number'' reading ``EPA-R05-SFUND-2023-0334'' to read ``EPA-R08-
SFUND-2023-0334''; and
    2. In Supplementary Information, in the third column, at the end of
the seventh line, add a parenthesis after ``costs.'' to read
``costs.''). ``

Ben Bielenberg,
Acting Division Director, Superfund and Emergency Management Division,
Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2023-17553 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49977-49979]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0133]

Commercial Driver's License (CDL): Application for Exemption;
U.S. Custom Harvesters, Inc. (USCHI)

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the U.S. Custom
Harvesters, Inc. (USCHI) an exemption from the ``K'' intrastate
restriction on commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) held by custom
harvester drivers operating in interstate commerce. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) exempt drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) controlled and operated by a person engaged in
interstate custom harvesting, including the requirement that drivers be
at least 21 years old. However, many younger custom harvester drivers
hold CDLs with an intrastate-only (or ``K'') restriction. This has
caused drivers of USCHI member companies to be cited during roadside
inspections in a different State, as the ``K'' restriction means that
the license is invalid outside the State of issuance, even when the
younger driver is operating under the custom harvester exemption. FMCSA
has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and has
determined that the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions
imposed, will achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective from October 3, 2018 through October
3, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs).
FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal
Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an
opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must
also provide an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and public comments
submitted, and determines whether granting the exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The
decision of the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49
CFR 381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if
granted, the specific person or class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision or provisions from which the
exemption is granted. The notice must also specify the effective period
and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption
may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    Custom harvesters are businesses that supply the equipment and
labor to assist farmers with harvesting during their busiest seasons.
Typically, there are two different classes of operations, grain
harvesting and forage harvesting. A grain harvester uses combines to
harvest wheat, corn, barley, canola, sunflowers, soybeans, and grain
sorghum, among others. These crop products are transported to an
elevator or on-farm storage, where the crop is stored and later
transported elsewhere to be processed into products for public use. A
forage harvester uses a chopper to harvest whole-plant crops such as
corn, sorghum, milo, triticale, and alfalfa. These crops are used for
silage to feed livestock in dairies and feedlots. Custom harvesters
travel from State to State and can spend from a few days to several
months cutting crops for one farmer.
    USCHI stated that custom harvesters are experiencing a problem with
the exemption in 49 CFR 391.2(a). It was adopted by the Federal Highway
Administration on December 22, 1971 [34 FR 24218] and has been widely
used by custom harvesters since then. Under this provision, drivers of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) controlled and operated by a person
engaged in custom harvesting are exempt from all of part 391, including
the requirement to be at least 21 years of age to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. USCHI member companies frequently employ drivers
18-21 years of age, who are issued commercial driver's licenses (CDLs)
with a ``K'' restriction that makes the license valid only for
operations within the issuing State (49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and
383.153(a)(10)(vii)). The problem arises because the CDL regulations,
adopted long after 1971, were not drafted to include an exemption
corresponding to section 391.2(a). As a result, the ``K'' restriction
means that the license is invalid outside the issuing State, even
though section 391.2(a) exempts younger custom harvester drivers from
the 21-year-old age requirement when operating in interstate commerce.
Section 391.2(a) does not preempt State CDL regulations, like
requirement in section 383.23(a)(2) to ``possess a CDL which meets the
standards contained in subpart J of this part,'' including any ``K''
restriction imposed under section 383.153(a)(10)(vii) of subpart J.
This has caused drivers employed by USCHI's members to be cited for CDL
violations during inspections, which is an issue not only for the
individual driver, but also for the custom harvester employer, whose
safety record is adversely affected.

Public Comments

    On May 1, 2017, FMCSA published notice of the USCHI application for
exemption and requested public comment (82 FR 20415). The Agency
received a total of thirteen sets of comments. Ten comments--all
submitted by custom harvesters--supported the exemption. Two
commenters--the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) expressed
various concerns with the request. One other commenter did not take a
position on the exemption.
    Those filing in support of the request stated that a large
percentage of their employees have been under the age of 21. They rely
on the rule allowing 18-

year-olds to obtain a CDL for intrastate (``K'' restricted) operations
[49 CFR 383.25(a)(4) and 383.71(a)(2)(i)] to have enough employees to
effectively run their businesses. This provision has allowed workers
under the age of 21 to obtain experience with truck driving. The
commenters said that many of these individuals have gone on to be
professional, full-time truck drivers, and that all of them would cite
the harvest work as pivotal to their training as a CDL driver. They
argued that the exemption from the ``K'' restriction is incredibly
important to their businesses, as well as to the development of
quality, responsible truck drivers for America's highways.
    Others commenting in favor of the exemption said that the way the
current law is interpreted causes much difficulty. Custom harvesters
can hire and train entry-level drivers, but it is difficult to find
employees who are willing to work seasonal jobs. In many cases, the
individuals most likely to work in these entry-level positions are 18-
to 20-year-olds. Many custom harvesters feel that 49 CFR 391.2(a) is
very clear; however, some States have different interpretations of the
exemption.
    The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) was concerned that
the remedy sought by USCHI will have unintended consequences on
interstate commerce, is cumbersome for State driver licensing agencies
(SDLAs) responsible for issuing the CDL, and addresses only a symptom
of the identified problem while ignoring the root cause. ODOT states
that this exemption would create a burden for SDLAs in the licensing
process. Accommodating this exemption would require time consuming and
costly programming work with no nexus to highway safety.
    The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
also expressed concern with the USCHI exemption request. AAMVA
commented that retaining State discretion on age limitations for
intrastate drivers should remain within the purview of the States.
Further, utilizing the ``K'' restriction on a restricted CDL ensures
underage operators of CMVs do not fully participate, unrestricted, in
interstate commerce. At issue is the removal of an intrastate
restriction that could allow an untested, younger driver, access to the
full interstate system without restriction.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated USCHI's application for exemption and the
public comments and decided to grant the exemption. One requirement of
any exemption issued under 49 CFR part 381 is that it be likely to
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation. In this case
interstate operations by custom harvester drivers below the age of 21
is already authorized by 49 CFR 391.2(a), and has been since 1971.
However, it conflicts with, but does not preempt, the subsequently
adopted requirements of 49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii).
FMCSA believes this exemption, by removing the obstacle posed by
sections 383.23(a)(2) and 383.153(a)(10)(vii), would not have any
impact on the safe operation of CMVs and is therefore likely to achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 391.2(a)).
    It should be noted that this exemption does not require any special
action or processing by the State driver licensing agencies. They will
continue to place the ``K'' restriction when called for, but
enforcement officers will disregard it in situations involving drivers
who can demonstrate eligibility for the custom harvester exemption.

Stakeholders

    The information below is provided to clarify what impact or meaning
this exemption will have on the following stakeholders.

Custom Harvester Drivers

    Custom harvester drivers will be able to display this exemption
notice to help explain that when operating in that capacity, they are
permitted to operate outside the State issuing their CDL even though
the license has a ``K'' (intrastate only) restriction.

Enforcement Officers

    This exemption notice will explain to law enforcement officers that
49 CFR 391.2(a) authorizes custom harvester drivers to operate in
interstate commerce even though under 21 years of age. The notice will
explain that a ``K'' restriction on these drivers' CDLs does not limit
them from driving outside the license-issuing State when they are
operating as custom harvesters in accordance with 49 CFR 391.2(a).

State Driver Licensing Agencies

    This exemption requires no action or inaction on the part of State
driver-licensing agencies. They will continue to issue CDLs with a
``K'' restriction to drivers under the age of 21.

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

    (1) Drivers for custom harvesters operating in interstate commerce
shall be exempt from any intrastate-only ``K'' restriction on their
CDLs when operating under the provisions of this exemption.
    (2) Drivers must have a copy of this notice in their possession
while operating under the terms of the exemption. The exemption
document must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
    (3) Drivers to be included in this exemption are identified in 49
CFR 391.2 as those operating a CMV to transport farm machinery,
supplies, or both, to or from a farm for custom-harvesting operations
on a farm; or transport custom-harvested crops to storage or market.
    (4) To ensure that the driver is authentically operating as a
custom harvester, he/she should be able to provide at least three of
the following methods of verification:
    (a) The driver may have on hand a valid custom harvesting document
such as a current date agricultural commodity scale sheet, a current
date custom harvesting load sheet, an official company document stating
the company purpose, etc.;
    (b) The CMV may have license plates specific to custom harvesting,
or the verbiage ``Harvesting'' may be part of the business signage on
the vehicle;
    (c) The CMV may be designed to haul a harvested agricultural
commodity or equipment for harvesting, or be a support vehicle for
custom-harvesting operations such as a service truck;
    (d) The CMV may be hauling a harvested agricultural commodity or
equipment for the purpose of custom harvesting;
    (e) The CMV may have newly harvested commodity or remnants on
board;
    (f) The driver will be able to provide a verifiable location of the
current harvesting operation or delivery location for a harvested
commodity.

Period of the Exemption

    This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 383.23(a)(2) and
383.153(a)(10)(vii) is effective from October 3, 2018 through October
3, 2023.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts

with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a firm or
person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required
to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate
commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    Under this exemption, the custom harvester employer must notify
FMCSA within 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR
390.5), involving any of the motor carrier's drivers operating under
the terms of this exemption. The notification must include the
following information:
    (a) Identity of Exemption: ``USCHI''
    (b) Date of the accident,
    (c) City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    (d) Driver's name and license number,
    (e) Co-driver's name and license number,
    (f) Vehicle number and State license number,
    (g) Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    (h) Number of fatalities,
    (i) The police-reported cause of the accident,
    (j) Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    (k) The total driving time and total on-duty time period prior to
the accident.
    Accident notifications shall be emailed to [email protected].

Termination

    FMCSA believes that the drivers of custom harvesting vehicles will
continue to maintain their previous safety record while operating under
this exemption. However, should problems occur, FMCSA will take all
steps necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation or
restriction of the exemption. FMCSA will immediately revoke or restrict
the exemption for failure to comply with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: September 26, 2018.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-21541 Filed 10-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23409-23412]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10796]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9978-25--Region 10]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc.
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Frontier Hard Chrome, Inc. (FHC) Superfund
Site (Site) located in Vancouver, Washington, from the National
Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed
action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of
Washington, through the Department of Ecology, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. However,
this deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
    (1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The 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. The 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.
    (2) Email: Laura Knudsen, Community Involvement Coordinator, at
[email protected].
    (3) Mail: Laura, Knudsen, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Suite 155, RAD-202-3, Seattle, Washington 98101-3123.
    (4) Hand delivery: Records Center, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Suite 155, Seattle, Washington. Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without

going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should
avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be
free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
Records Center, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155,
Seattle, Washington, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays,
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.; Vancouver Community Library, 901 C
Street, Vancouver, Washington 98660,<PHONE_NUMBER> between 9:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, or 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday to
Sunday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Jennings, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, ECL-12,
Seattle, Washington 98101-3123<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    The EPA Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Frontier Hard
Chrome, Inc. Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes
Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which the EPA promulgated
pursuant to Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9605. The
EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites
on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions financed by the
Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible
for Fund-financed remedial actions if future conditions warrant such
actions.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this Site
for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the Frontier Hard Chrome,
Inc. Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion
criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will
consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    (1) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (2) all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    (3) the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    The EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site will be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice
of Intent to Delete.
    (2) The EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology, has
concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, the Columbian. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. The EPA will prepare
a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments or
data received during the public comment period. After the public
comment period, if the EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete
the Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of
Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions
and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made
available to interested parties and in the Site information
repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting
the Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The \1/2\-acre Frontier Hard Chrome (FHC), Inc. Superfund Site (EPA
ID:

WAD053614988) is located at 113 Y Street, Vancouver, Clark County,
Washington, approximately \3/4\ mile north of the Columbia River. The
area was once dominated by light industry but has transitioned to
commercial and residential uses. Between 1958 and 1983, two chrome
plating businesses, Pioneer Plating (1958 to 1970) and Frontier Hard
Chrome (1970 to 1983) occupied the Site. Since 1983, the Site has been
used by various businesses. A commercial storage facility and parking
lot are currently being constructed at the Site.
    In 1976, untreated chromium plating wastes from FHC's operations
were temporarily rerouted from the sanitary sewer to an on-Site dry
well while an on-site treatment system was constructed. Despite several
enforcement actions, the treatment system was never designed or
constructed. In January 1983, the Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) ordered FHC to stop the discharge of chromium plating wastes
to the dry well and to prepare a plan to investigate the groundwater.
Before taking any action, FHC closed the business.
    In 1982, an industrial supply well about \1/4\ mile from the Site
was found to be contaminated with chromium at more than twice the
federal drinking water standard referred to as the ``maximum
contaminant level'' (MCL). Further investigation, indicated the
presence of a plume with elevated chromium concentrations downgradient
of the dry well on the FHC property.
    In December 1982, the EPA proposed that the Site be included on the
NPL established by the EPA under Section 105(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
9605(a) (47 FR 58476). Following consideration of public comments, the
listing was finalized by the EPA in September 1983 (48 FR 40658).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In 1984, Ecology initiated the Remedial Investigation (RI). Initial
testing found total chromium levels in groundwater beneath the Site
that were more than 2,000 times the MCL [50 micrograms per liter
([micro]g/L)] and had spread approximately 1,600 feet southwest of the
source. Later, total chromium concentrations in groundwater near the
former dry well were found as high as 300,000 [micro]g/L.
    Chromium in soils near the former dry well were identified as the
source of the groundwater contamination at FHC. Total chromium levels
in surface soils were reported as high as 5,200 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) and hexavalent chromium as high as 42 mg/kg. Subsurface soil
concentrations for total and hexavalent chromium were reported as high
as 31,800 mg/kg and 7,506 mg/kg, respectively. Elevated chromium levels
were found up to 20 feet below the ground surface and extended beyond
the southern property boundary.

Selected Remedy

    The EPA issued a December 1987 Operable Unit 1 (OU 1) Record of
Decision (ROD) to address contaminated soils and source areas, and a
July 1988 OU 2 ROD to address contaminated groundwater. The objectives
of the OU1 soil remedy were to protect human health by preventing the
direct exposure to chromium contaminated soils and dusts and to protect
the groundwater by controlling the source of the contamination and
included excavation, chemical treatment by a chemical binding agent,
and off-Site disposal. Based on a Site-specific leachate test, all
soils with total chromium concentrations greater than 550 mg/kg
(approximately 7,400 cubic yards of soil) were removed and disposed of
offsite.
    The remedy selected in the OU 2 ROD called for extraction of
groundwater from the areas where levels of chromium exceeded 50,000
[micro]g/L, followed by treatment using selective media ion exchange
and discharge to the Columbia River or Vancouver's sewer system. To
prevent consumption of contaminated drinking water, institutional
controls would be used to restrict the use of groundwater in and around
the contaminated plume.
    During the remedial design for OU 1, bench scale tests indicated
that the stabilization methods selected in the remedy would likely not
be effective at preventing the leaching of hexavalent chromium from
Site soils. In response, the EPA initiated a Focused Feasibility Study
that identified and evaluated several new and innovative technologies
for addressing the contamination remaining at the Site. The results of
bench scale testing indicated that In-Situ Redox Manipulation (ISRM)
would be the most effective technology to address the cleanup
objectives.
    On August 30, 2001, the EPA issued a ROD amendment (RODA) modifying
the remedial action selected in the 1987 and 1988 RODs. The amended
remedy called for an ISRM Treatment Barrier to be installed at the
southern edge of the groundwater hot spot and for reducing compounds to
be injected into the contaminated soils and groundwater upgradient of
the barrier. After injection, the reductant reacted with naturally
occurring iron in the soils to create a permeable reactive zone,
thereby reducing hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. Groundwater
downgradient of the barrier would be restored through natural
dispersion and dilution. Regular monitoring would be conducted until
all groundwater met the cleanup level of 50 [micro]g/L. Institutional
controls (ICs) that limited access to contaminated soils and
groundwater and future activities that threaten to remobilize chromium
in Site soils were to be evaluated and implemented.

Response Actions

    In 1994, to reduce the threat of direct exposure and further
impacts to groundwater from the most heavily contaminated surface
soils, Ecology excavated surface soils with chromium concentrations
above 210 mg/kg (approximately 160 cubic yards) and disposed of them
off-Site. The area was backfilled with clean material and a commercial
office building was constructed on the property.
    In December 2000, in conjunction with a local drainage project, the
EPA extended a tight-lined drain pipe with road drains and catch basins
to the south and west of the Site. The extension allowed stormwater to
drain away from the FHC Site, thus preventing further infiltration of
surface water through contaminated soils and into groundwater.
    From 2001 to 2003, the EPA designed and implemented the ISRM
Treatment selected in the 2001 RODA. Chemical reductant was first
injected along the southern edge of an area with the highest chromium
levels in the groundwater, forming the ISRM barrier, and then applied
to source area soils and groundwater upgradient of the barrier. On
September 22, 2003, the EPA signed a Preliminary Close-Out Report
documenting the completion of construction activities. On September 28,
2012, the Site was designated as ``Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use''.
    In 2003 the EPA also reviewed existing local and state controls
that would protect the public from exposure to soils and groundwater
impacted by past releases at the Site. The EPA determined that existing
controls sufficiently limited access to contaminated soils and
groundwater and that no additional ICs were required. Even so, when
approached in 2004 by a perspective developer interested in purchasing
the property, the EPA entered into an Agreement and Covenant Not to Sue
with the developer. The Agreement was recorded on the property deeds
and required compliance with seven institutional controls,

including prohibitions on the installation of groundwater wells and use
of groundwater.
    In February 2004, a Long-Term Monitoring Plan was developed by the
EPA to track the size of the chromium plume downgradient of the Site
and to ensure the protectiveness of the remedy. In 2007, the size of
the network and the frequency of sampling were reduced. The final
sampling event took place in 2016.

Cleanup Levels

    The cleanup levels established in the RODA were based on federal
drinking water standards, State cleanup levels established under the
Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), and State surface water standards.
Consistent with MTCA, cleanup levels for hexavalent and trivalent
chromium in soils were set at 19 mg/kg and 80,000 mg/kg respectively.
Also based on MTCA, a groundwater cleanup level of 50 [micro]g/L total
chromium was established. Finally, the State's chronic surface water
standards were used to establish a cleanup level of 10.5 [micro]g/L for
groundwater immediately upgradient of the Columbia River.
    Following the 2016 sampling event, the EPA reviewed the data and
found that, over the last several years, total chromium had only been
detected at one well and that the groundwater concentrations at that
well were below the cleanup level of 50 [micro]g/L (Well B-87-8; 8.82
[micro]g/L total chromium). A statistical analysis indicated the
groundwater had attained the cleanup level and was expected to continue
to do so in the future. Since monitoring began in 2004, the total
chromium concentration in the wells closest to the river (well W99-R5A
W99-R5B) have been below the cleanup level of 10.5 [micro]g/L set for
groundwater immediately upgradient of the Columbia River.
    A Final Close-Out Report documenting completion of all remedial
actions was signed by the EPA on January 29, 2018. The report
documented that all soil and groundwater Remedial Action Objectives
(RAOs) and cleanup levels established in the 2001 RODA had been
attained, the remedy had been successfully implemented, and no further
CERCLA actions were required at the Site. However, in 2018, all
remaining monitoring wells will be decommissioned by Ecology. No
additional monitoring or Operations and Maintenance of the remedy are
required.

Five-Year Review

    Three policy five-year reviews (FYR) have been completed at the
Site, the last one in January 2018.
    No issues or follow-up actions were identified as part of the 2018
Five-Year Review. The protectiveness statement read: ``Because the
remedial actions at OU 1 and OU 2 are protective, the site is
protective of human health and the environment.''
    The analysis conducted concurrent with the last FYR indicates that
the remedy has been fully implemented and the remedial action
objectives and related cleanup levels have been attained. No hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants remain above levels that could
prevent unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). Therefore, no
further five-year reviews are required.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Throughout the remedial process, the EPA has kept the
public informed of activities being conducted at the Site by way of
informational meetings, fact sheets and public meetings.
    Documents in the deletion docket which the EPA relied on for the
recommendation for deletion from the NPL are available to the public at
the information repositories identified previously. Concurrent with
this notice, a notice of availability of the Notice of Intent for
Deletion has been published in The Columbian, initiating a 30-day
public comment period. EPA will review all comments received before
making a final decision on this proposed deletion action.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Washington through the
Department of Ecology, has determined that the implemented remedy
achieves the degree of cleanup or protection specified in the RODs and
RODA for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial and removal
action objectives and associated cleanup levels are consistent with
agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response is needed to
protect human health and the environment.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where all appropriate response actions have been implemented and
where no further response is appropriate. Consistent with this, the EPA
is proposing deletion of this Site from the NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: May 3, 2018.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2018-10796 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P