[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33177-33182]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9980-60--Region 3]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III is
issuing a Notice of Intent to Delete the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund
Site (Site) located in Longswamp and Upper Macungie Townships, in Berks
and Lehigh Counties, Pennsylvania from the National Priorities List
(NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(the Commonwealth), through the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection (PADEP), have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance
(O&M), monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, have been completed. However,
this deletion would not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2005-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov Follow on-line 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.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
PA 19103.
     Hand delivery: U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. 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-
2005-0011. 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 EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. EPA Region III Administrative Records Room, 1650 Arch Street--6th
Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Business Hours: Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; by appointment only
Local Repository, Upper Macungie Township Building, 8330 Schantz Road,
Breinigsville, PA 18031, Business Hours: Monday through Friday, 7:30
a.m.-4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Greaves, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, 3HS211650 Arch
Street Philadelphia, PA 19103,<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

    EPA Region III announces its intent to delete the Dorney Road
Landfill 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 EPA promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. 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.
    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 EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Dorney Road Landfill
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that 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), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the Commonwealth, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. 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.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. 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 may 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) EPA consulted with the Commonwealth before developing this
Notice of Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), 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 Reading Eagle. 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, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if 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 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 Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    EPA proposed the Dorney Road Landfill Superfund Site (Site)
(CERCLIS ID PAD980508832) to the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40674)
and added the Site as final on the NPL on September 21, 1984 (49 FR
37070). The Site is located along the southwest boundary of Upper
Macungie Township in Lehigh County, PA, with a small portion of the
Site extending into Longswamp Township in Berks County.
    The 27-acre Site consists of an abandoned iron mine pit that was
used as a landfill, a surrounding soil berm, and adjacent land.
Beginning in 1962, the Site was operated as an open dump, with the
majority of waste disposed in an abandoned mine pit. The landfill was
expanded to except a variety of household and industrial waste from
regional municipalities and local businesses, until operations ceased
in December 1978.
    In all areas of the Site, except for the northwestern portion, the
water table occurs in the bedrock near or below the bedrock/overburden
interface. The overburden is approximately 70 feet thick. The landfill
waste is contained within the overburden. The water table exists within
the overburden areas of relatively thick overburden and in the bedrock
where the overburden is relatively thin. The water table is not in
contact with the waste material. The direction of regional groundwater
flow in the bedrock-overburden aquifer is generally from the northwest
to the southeast.
    In January 1970, the Pennsylvania State Health Center notified the
landfill owner that the landfill constituted a public health threat and
required the owner to compact the fill and apply cover to the landfill.
A follow-up letter stated that the owner did not comply with the
directive. In June 1970, a representative from the Pennsylvania
Department of the Environmental Resources (PADER, formerly, the
Pennsylvania State Health Center) visited the landfill and noted the
approximate location of an on-site area used for the disposal of
sludge. Other visits identified the disposal of petroleum products,
asbestos, and battery casings.
    Contaminants in the leachate and groundwater included ketones,
vinyl chloride, trichloroethene (TCE), benzene, heavy metals, and
arsenic. Soils contained the pesticide dieldrin, as well as lead and
chromium. The apparent source of contamination was the waste buried and
dumped on the soil at the landfill.
    In 1986, EPA performed an Emergency Removal Action at the Site to
ensure that landfill-related materials were not transported off of the
property by storm water. The removal action consisted of re-grading the
Site to prevent surface water runoff. The construction of on-site ponds
allowed for controlled discharge of surface water via two major
spillways. Although a soil cover was applied to portions of the Site,
the landfill had never been graded and capped, and waste continued to
be exposed in some areas.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Site consists of two operable units (OUs). OU1 addresses the
source of the contamination by capping the landfill. OU2 focuses on
addressing

groundwater contamination which is the principal exposure pathway.
    A Cooperative Agreement was signed between EPA and PADER, and PADER
became the lead agency for work in the RI/FS phase. The OU1 RI was
performed from January to June 1988. Due to difficulties encountered
during Phase I activities, additional data needs were identified and
investigative activities were proposed as a Phase II RI effort. Results
of the OU1 RI were presented in the Final Remedial Investigation Report
for OU1 dated August 11, 1988. A Feasibility Study for OU1, focusing on
the landfill waste, was also submitted in August 1988. The OU2 RI/FS
was performed by PADER from March to July 1991. The study focused on
the groundwater and primarily consisted of additional sampling of wells
installed during the OU1 RI.
    Major field activities conducted during Phase I of the OU1 RI
included:
     Air sampling;
     On-site surface water and seep sampling;
     On-site sediment sampling;
     On-site and off-site, surface and subsurface soil
sampling;
     Monitoring well installation;
     Groundwater monitoring well and residential well sampling;
     Hydraulic conductivity testing;
     Fracture trace analysis;
     Surface geophysical investigation.
    The major field activities performed during Phase II of the OU1 RI
included:
     Installed one deep well off-site (MW-6) to the southeast
to obtain downgradient groundwater data.
     Installed an off-site well nest (MW-7/7D) to the northwest
of the landfill to provide additional groundwater quality data and flow
information.
     Installed on-site boring (TB-LMW-4) to determine the
thickness of gravel between the base of the refuse and the top of the
bedrock.
     Installed four borings (TB-1,2,3,4) along the southeast
corner of the site to identify the presence or absence of a shallow
groundwater zone identified during the OU1 Phase I RI.
     Obtained six additional groundwater samples (MW-6, 7, 7D,
two rounds) and analyzed for unfiltered metals.
     Performed borehole geophysics in off-site wells (MW-2D,
3D, 4, 5D, 6, 7, 7D). Borehole geophysics were performed to supplement
the minimal lithological data obtained during the OU1 Phase 1 and Phase
II RI drilling and well installation activities due to difficulty in
drilling and poor recoveries.
    Air sampling was performed to determine the quantity and quality of
ambient airborne contaminants to evaluate the potential exposure to on-
site workers and neighboring populations. The data was used to
determine the appropriate level of protection on-site, and to establish
the exclusion, contamination reduction, and support zone delineations
used during the field activities.
    A fracture trace analysis was performed to provide information on
the number, size, frequency and orientation of bedrock joints,
fractures, and large-scale lineaments. The data was used for
determining monitoring well locations and for evaluation of the
potential for contaminant migration through bedrock.
    A geophysical investigation (seismic refraction survey) was
performed to obtain information on the thickness of overburden and the
depth to bedrock, the thickness of the landfill waste, the condition of
the bedrock at the iron mine pit, and to verify any lineaments
previously identified.
    Sampling and analysis of the on-site ponds was performed to collect
data on the contaminant concentrations in the standing liquid and
bottom sediments. The data was used to estimate the extent and degree
of contamination and estimate the volumes of liquid and soil to be
treated and/or removed.
    Soil sampling was performed to provide data on the chemical
characteristics of soils both on-site and off-site, to determine the
degree of off-site migration of contamination, and to provide data
concerning the on-site vertical and horizontal extent of contamination.
For comparison to on-site data, a background sample was collected
approximately 900 ft. west of the Site and was assumed to be isolated
from any site-related conditions. On-site soils exceeded EPA's
acceptable levels for both cancer risk and non-cancer hazard index
primarily due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, lead
and chromium. Contaminants in leachate and groundwater included
ketones, 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA),
TCE, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene and arsenic.
Both cancer and non-cancer groundwater risk substantially exceeded
EPA's acceptable criteria. Risk at the Site was due to dermal contact
and incidental ingestion of landfill soil, solid waste and on-site
ponded waters (OU1) and residential exposure via ingestion of
contaminated groundwater and inhalation of volatile contaminants while
showering (OU2).

Selected Remedy

    On September 29, 1988, the Acting Regional Administrator signed a
Record of Decision (ROD) for OU1. The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1
ROD consists of the following components:

 Elimination of on-site ponded waters
 Regrading
 Pennsylvania-Type Multi-layer Cap
 Run-on/Run-off Controls
 Run-off Monitoring
 Groundwater Monitoring
 Perimeter Fence
 Deed Notice

    The Remedial Action objectives (RAOs) were not explicitly stated in
the ROD for OU1. The following RAOs were inferred:
     Control contaminant migration off-site by containment of
contaminated landfill soil and waste material;
     Prevent dermal contact and incidental ingestion; and
     Prevent continued leaching of precipitation and ponded
waters through the contaminated landfill material.
    On September 18, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) for OU1. The 1991 ESD was
issued to address compliance with wetlands Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). The Selected Remedy in the 1988 OU1
ROD required the destruction of approximately seven acres of wetlands
during construction of the cap. The 1991 ESD allowed the sedimentation
ponds required to control run-on/run-off from the cap to also mitigate
the destroyed wetlands and become a quality habitat for the varied
wildlife at the Site.
    On September 30, 1991, the Regional Administrator signed a ROD for
OU2 (1991 OU2 ROD), selecting a remedy with the following major
components:
     Wellhead treatment units to be provided to residences if
levels of site-related contaminants exceeded federal Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs);
     Groundwater monitoring.
    The RAO for OU2 was not explicitly stated in the 1991 OU2 ROD;
however, the RAO is inferred to be to eliminate exposure to
contaminated groundwater.

Response Actions

    In September 1990, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order
(UAO), EPA Docket No. III-90-45-DC, to seven Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) after negotiations were unsuccessful. A second UAO, EPA
Docket No. III-91-26-DC, was issued to an eighth PRP on January 25,
1991, and a third UAO, EPA Docket No. III-92-33-DC, was issued to five
additional PRPs on August 13, 1992. The UAOs required the PRPs to
implement the Selected Remedy described in the 1988 OU1 ROD. The

modifications to the Selected Remedy specified in the September 18,
1991 ESD were incorporated into the UAOs. The Remedial Design (RD) was
approved in June 1995.
    The Remedial Action (RA) for OU1 began in April 1998. The major
components of the RA included the following:
     Site clearing which included removal of ponded water,
clearing of vegetative cover, chipping woody vegetation, and relocation
of fugitive surface debris under the cover system;
     Monitoring well abandonment;
     Gas trench construction, which was designed to minimize
the lateral flow of landfill gas outside the landfill limits below the
surface. The design included a peripheral gas collection trench just
beyond the lateral extent of the landfill;
     Landfill regrading to achieve the grades and slopes for
the acceptance of the cover system;
     Subgrade preparation which involved grading and placement
of compacted general fill;
     Construction of a gas vent layer on top of the landfill. A
geocomposite was used as a gas vent layer on the side slopes of the
landfill.
     Gas vent collection piping system consisting of flexible
4-inch perforated High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe along the top
of the gas trench connected to seventeen 4-inch HDPE conveyance pipes
which were connected to seventeen peripheral passive vents along the
crest of the cap. On the surface of the cap, an additional fourteen
passive vents were installed with four horizontal perforated flexible
HDPE feeder pipes to collect the gas and vent it passively through vent
pipes;
     A geotextile was placed over the gas venting layer prior
to installation of the grading layer;
     Two types of geomembrane were installed. A 40-millimeter
smooth HDPE geomembrane was installed where the slopes were minimal and
a 40-millimeter textured HDPE geomembrane was installed on the
embankment slopes along the periphery of the landfill;
     On the top of the landfill, a geotextile cushion layer was
placed over the geomembrane to protect it from the overlying sand
drainage layer;
     A sand drainage layer was put in place and another
separation geotextile was put on top of the drainage layer;
     An 18-inch layer of compacted general fill on the cover
system and 24-inches of general fill on the cover system slopes serve
as protection layer over the underlying system;
     A vegetative layer was the final cover;
     Surface drainage was designed with five basic drainage
patterns. These patterns were rough graded during initial landfill
grading operations and incorporated as part of the temporary erosion
sediment control plan. Permanent drainage incorporated the use of
stormwater pipes, riprap channels and natural drainage systems;
     A replacement wetland was constructed, which also serves
as a stormwater drainage area; and
     A chain link security fence was installed with proper
signage.
    The contractor conducted the RA basically as designed, with only
minor modifications. One modification had to be made for the
construction of the wetlands. The west pond contained a large rock
which had to be excavated with a rock hammer and processed using a rock
crusher. This generated approximately 30,000 cubic yards of fill that
was used on the general fill layer of the landfill cap. Another
modification was with the placement of the fence on Dorney Road. A
variance was needed from the Township to construct the fence closer to
the street than 6 feet in order to avoid puncturing the cap with the
fence posts. The variance was granted and the fence was installed
according to the specifications.
    EPA, PADEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a
pre-final inspection on September 20, 1999. The inspection resulted in
a schedule for the contractor to correct some minor construction items.
    EPA issued a UAO for the OU2 RD/RA, EPA Docket No. III-92-27-DC, to
twelve PRPs on August 18, 1992. The baseline residential well sampling
for OU2 was conducted during the first two weeks of March 1999. The
1991 OU2 ROD and RD required residential groundwater samples to be
compared to federal MCLs. If the sampling results were above the MCLs,
wellhead treatment units would be required. The baseline results were
below the MCLs at all residential wells and no wellhead treatment units
were installed. Residential monitoring is ongoing. The operation and
maintenance plans (O&M Plans) for OU1 and OU2 were approved by EPA and
PADEP in October 1997 and September 1996, respectively. The Preliminary
Closeout Report (PCOR) was issued for the Site on September 28, 1999.
The PCOR documents that construction activities were completed at the
Site in accordance with Closeout Procedures For National Priorities
Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P).

Cleanup Levels

    Groundwater monitoring is performed in accordance with the 1988 OU1
ROD and 1995 OU1 O&M Plan at the landfill monitoring well network and
in accordance with the 1991 OU2 ROD and 1996 O&M Plan at the
residential well monitoring network.
    Landfill monitoring is conducted to detect any changes in
groundwater quality due to leaching of landfill contaminants. The
landfill monitoring network consists of the following wells: MW-2S, MW-
2DR, MW-3S, MW-7S, MW-11S and MW-11D. During each sampling event,
groundwater samples are analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and dissolved metals. Field activities, groundwater elevation data,
groundwater quality data and the results of the data validation are
presented in each summary report. A summary of all historical data is
also presented in the summary reports.
    During the 2013-2017 period, several metals were detected in the
landfill monitoring wells. The detected VOCs included PCE, TCE, and
chloromethane. All detections during the 2013-2017 period were within
the historical range of concentrations and remain very low. Most are
well below MCLs except for manganese, mercury and thallium in MW-7S and
thallium in MW-3S. MW-7S is up gradient of the landfill and these
exceedances do not appear to be site related. Thallium was only
detected in MW-3S during two sampling events in 2016, but had not been
detected previously or in subsequent sampling events. Based on a review
of historical monitoring from 2013 to 2017 from all other monitoring
wells, there have been no exceedances of MCLs during this period.
    The 1988 OU1 ROD did not select chemical-specific ARARs for
groundwater. Instead, the 1988 OU1 ROD required groundwater monitoring
upgradient and downgradient of the Site to detect any changes in
groundwater quality due to the potential leaching of landfill
contaminants into groundwater. As indicated above, detections of Site-
related compounds in groundwater are generally below the respective
MCLs and have remained consistent with historic groundwater sampling
results. Therefore, no impacts to groundwater as a result of leaching
of landfill contaminants have been observed and the groundwater cleanup
goal established in the 1988 OU1 ROD has been achieved.
    Residential wells are sampled quarterly on a rotating basis so the
same wells are not sampled every event. Groundwater samples are
collected from an inside or outside spigot and analyzed for VOCs.
Twenty-eight residential wells were sampled between the 2013 and 2017.
Of those 28 wells, 14 wells

had one or more detections of VOCs. The most commonly detected VOC is
PCE. The PCE concentrations are consistent with historical
concentrations at these locations. Chloroform was detected at two
locations in 2016 and TCE was detected once in 2013. All detections
from 2013 to 2017 have been well below respective MCLs and have never
exceeded MCLs during any monitoring event.
    The 1991 OU2 ROD waived the Pennsylvania Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations [25 PA Code Sec. Sec.  264.90-264.100, specifically 25 PA
Code Sec.  264.97(i) and (j) and Sec.  264.100(a)(9)], which require
remediation of groundwater to background levels, as well as the
requirement to remediate groundwater to federal Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300g-l and
set forth in 40 CFR 141.61. These ARARs were waived in accordance with
CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9621(d)(4)(C)) and the NCP (40 CFR
300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C)(3)) due to technical impracticability of achieving
background levels (from an engineering perspective) and MCLs throughout
the groundwater contaminant plume. As indicated above, detections of
Site-related compounds in groundwater are generally below the
respective MCLs in Site monitoring wells.
    The 1991 OU2 ROD required that MCLs be met for Site related
contaminants of concern (COCs) at the tap prior to use of the
groundwater by nearby residents. Wellhead treatment systems would be
provided if any Site related MCL exceedances were identified. As
indicated above, no Site-related compounds exceeded MCLs in any
residential samples during the most recent Five-Year Review period from
2013 to 2017. Additionally, no Site related COCs have been identified
in any residential samples above MCLs since sampling began in 1999.
Therefore, the RAO of eliminating exposure to contaminated groundwater
has been achieved. Residential monitoring will continue to ensure that
groundwater cleanup goals continue to be met.

Operation and Maintenance

    The PRP group conducts long-term monitoring and maintenance
activities at the Site in accordance with the EPA-approved August 1995
OU1 O&M Plan and January 1996 OU2 O&M Plan. The primary activities
associated with O&M include the following:
     Visual inspection of the cap with regard to vegetative
cover, settlement, stability, and any need for corrective action. In
addition, the cap is scheduled for periodic mowing;
     Inspection of the drainage swales for blockage, erosion
and instability, and any need for corrective action;
     Inspection of the condition of the groundwater monitoring
wells;
     Quarterly groundwater monitoring, which includes
monitoring of the landfill wells and residential wells; and
     Engineered wetlands inspection and assessment. Inspections
are conducted primarily for the purposes of assessing both weed control
needs and the survival of plantings. Assessments are performed to
determine if engineered wetlands are meeting the performance standards
regarding survival and density of the desired wetlands species.
    The City of Allentown conducts the quarterly inspections of the
landfill, as well as the quarterly groundwater sampling of both the
landfill wells and the residential wells. Over the last five years
there have been few, if any, problems with the landfill.
    As established in the 1991 OU2 ROD, long-term monitoring is
conducted on a quarterly basis at five residences selected based on the
previous sampling results. The quarterly sampling is conducted by the
City of Allentown. The quarterly sampling program may be modified by
EPA, in such areas as the number of wells, location of wells, frequency
of sampling, and analytical parameters. If quarterly sampling indicates
that a residential well that exceeds MCLs, a wellhead treatment system
would be provided and maintained. There have been no quarterly
residential samples which have been above MCLs since sampling began in
March 1999.
    In March of 2007 EPA issued a second ESD (2007 ESD) that required
institutional controls (ICs) (e.g. easements, covenants, title notices
or land use restrictions through orders or agreements with EPA), to be
established to prevent any future use of the Site that could compromise
the effectiveness of the Selected Remedy.
    The ICs were established to prevent the disturbance of the landfill
cap and the installation of groundwater wells on the capped portion of
the Dorney Road Landfill property and to prevent future use of the
property that would compromise the effectiveness of the Selected
Remedy.
    EPA surveyed the landfill property to determine the parcel
boundaries and to confirm the current property owners in 2011. An
assessment of the ICs already in place concluded that ICs to protect
the integrity of the cap cover system and prevent the installation of
drinking water wells on the landfill were implemented by the following
instruments with the four Site owners:

 Unilateral Administrative Order Docket No. III-98-011-DC,
March 3, 1998, for access to conduct RA
 Unilateral Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-96-
79-DC, September 18, 1996, for access to conduct RA
 Administrative Order by Consent, Docket No. III-97-84-DC, May
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
 Administrative Order by Consent Docket No. III-97-85-DC, May
14, 1997, for access and resolution of liability
 Administrative Order for Access Docket No. III-98-013-DC, for
access to conduct RA
 Docket No. III-98-012-DC, March 3, 1998, for access to conduct
RA, respondent In Rem
 Deed Notice No. 8665-9544 May 10, 1991 states that property is
part of Dorney Road Landfill CERCLA action in Docket No. III-90-45-DC

Five-Year Review

    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in the current
guidance on Five-Year Reviews, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance,
OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, June 2001, EPA must conduct a statutory
Five-Year Review if hazardous substances remain on-site above levels
that would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The
Five-Year Reviews for the Site were signed on the following dates:

1. First Five-Year Review--July 11, 2003
2. Second Five-Year Review--July 28, 2008
3. Third Five-Year Review--May 29, 2013
4. Fourth Five-Year Review--May 18, 2018

    No issues or recommendations were identified in the 2018 Fourth
Five-Year Review. The Protectiveness Statement in the 2018 Fourth Five-
Year Review was as follows:
    The remedies in place at the Site are protective of human health
and the environment. The landfill cap prevents direct contact with site
contamination and prevents migration of contaminants to groundwater.
Groundwater contamination is stable in landfill wells with most
contaminants below MCLs. Residential monitoring indicates site
contaminants remain below MCLs. The institutional controls in place are
adequate to protect the engineered remedy and prevent installation of
drinking water wells on the landfill.''

Community Involvement

    EPA community relations staff conducted an active campaign to
ensure that the residents were well informed about activities at the
Site. Community relations activities included the following:

 Interviews of Township officials for Five-Year Reviews
 Fact Sheets

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 300.425(e)(4), EPA's
community involvement activities associated with this deletion will
consist of information supporting the deletion docket in the local Site
information repository and placing a public notice of EPA's intent to
delete the Site from the NPL in the Reading Eagle, a major, local
newspaper of general circulation.

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

    Construction of the Selected Remedy at the Site has been completed
and O&M has been untaken and is still ongoing in accordance with the
EPA-approved O&M Plans. All RAOs, Performance Standards, and cleanup
goals established in the 1988 OU1 ROD, 1991 OU2 ROD, 1991 ESD and 2007
ESD have been achieved and the Selected Remedy is protective of human
health and the environment. No further Superfund response actions,
other than O&M, monitoring, and Five-Year Reviews, are necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
    The procedures specified in 40 CFR 300.425(e) have been followed
for the deletion of the Site. EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth
through PADEP, has determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the 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: June 19, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-15245 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1064-1065]
[FR Doc No: 2012-117]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1281-010.
    Applicants: 330 Fund I, LP v. New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Description: Compliance Notice to confirm timely development of new
interface pricing software of New York Independent System Operator,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/22/11.
    Accession Number: 20111222-5252.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1781-001.

    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis of Northern Indiana
Public Service Company.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2034-001; ER10-2032-002; ER10-2033-002; ER10-
1329-001.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., Duke Energy Kentucky, Inc.,
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., St. Paul
Cogeneration, LLC.
    Description: Updated market power analysis of Duke Energy Central
Region.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2211-001; ER10-2218-001.
    Applicants: Vandolah Power Company, L.L.C., Orlando CoGen Limited,
L.P.
    Description: Vandolah Power Company, L.L.C., et al. submits
Triennial MBR Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2570-006.
    Applicants: Shady Hills Power Company L.L.C.
    Description: Report of Shady Hills Power Company LLC, Submission of
triennial market power analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/29/11.
    Accession Number: 20111229-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3199-001.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., a Division.
    Description: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. Triennial Review, Updated
Market Power Analysis.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3203-002.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company.
    Description: J. Aron & Company's Updated Market Power Analysis for
the Southeast Region.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-706-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM SA No. 3164; Queue No. V4-006, V4-007, V4-030 and
V4-031 to be effective 11/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-707-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position W2-019; Original Service Agreement No.
3165 to be effective 11/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-708-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC.
    Description: Duke Energy Vermillion II, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.37: Central Triennial Filing to be effective 1/9/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-709-000.
    Applicants: NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC.
    Description: NaturEner Wind Watch, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.1: Coordinated Operating Agreement with NorthWestern Corporation to
be effective 12/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-710-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Northern Indiana Public Service Company submits tariff
filing per 35.12: Transmission Upgrade Agreement and Request for Waiver
and Expedited Treatment to be effective 12/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-711-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Coordinated and Restated Operating Agreement with
NaturEner Wind Watch to be effective 12/21/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/28/11.
    Accession Number: 20111228-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-712-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: LGIA Alta 2012 Project, Alta Windpower
Development, Alta Wind VII, X, XI to be effective 12/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/11.
    Accession Number: 20111229-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-713-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SGIA SCE-TA-High Desert LLC Antelope Power
Plant Project to be effective 12/30/2011.
    Filed Date: 12/29/11.
    Accession Number: 20111229-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/19/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 29, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-117 Filed 1-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 66032-66033]
[DOCID:fr06no08-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2801-027]

Littleville Power Company, Inc.; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms
and Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions

October 30, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent License.
    b. Project No.: P-2801-027.
    c. Date filed: October 31, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Littleville Power Company, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Glendale Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Housatonic River in the Town of Stockbridge,
Berkshire County. The project does not affect federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kevin M. Webb, Environmental Affairs
Coordinator, Littleville Power Company, Inc., One Tech Drive, Suite
220, Andover, MA 01810,<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 809,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kristen Murphy,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests, comments,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and fishway prescriptions is,
December 30, 2008, 60 days from the issuance of this notice; reply
comments are due, February 12, 2009, 105 days from the issuance date of
this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene and protests may be filed electronically via
the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the
``eFiling'' link.
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now is
ready for environmental analysis.
    l. As licensed, the existing Glendale Project consists of: (1) A
250-foot-long, 30-foot-high concrete gravity dam with a 182-foot-long
spillway; (2) a 23-acre reservoir; (3) two manually-operated 10 by 10-
foot intake gates; (4) a 1,500-foot-long, 40-foot-wide intake canal;
(5) a forebay structure and a 250-foot-long, 12-foot-diameter steel
penstock; (6) a powerhouse with four turbine generating units with a
combined installed capacity of 1,140-kilowatts; (7) a 300-foot-long
tailrace channel; (8) a step-up transformer and an 83-foot-long, 13.8
kilovolt transmission line; and (9) appurtenant facilities. The
Housatonic River reach that is bypassed by the project (measured from
the gatehouse to the tailrace channel) is about 2,500 feet long.
    The proposed project would include a new 165-kW turbine unit in the
waste gate slot located at the gatehouse adjacent to the project dam.
This unit would operate off of a proposed minimum bypassed reach flow
of 90 cubic feet per second (cfs) or inflow. In addition, the proposed
project would provide additional recreational access through formal
canoe portage facilities and parking.
    The applicant estimates that the total average annual generation,
with the proposed additional turbine, would be 5,800 megawatt-hours.
The applicant proposes to continue to operate the project in run-of-
river mode with an increase in minimum flow in the bypass reach from 10
cfs to 90 cfs or inflow, whichever is less. The purpose of the

project is to produce electrical power for sale.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210,.211,.214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or `` FISHWAY
PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant
and the project number of the application to which the filing responds;
(3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person
protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain
copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any
protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative
of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following revised Hydro Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the
schedule may be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Milestone                           Target Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission issues EA......................  March 2009.
Comments on EA............................  April 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-26450 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 50095]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20548]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. FAA-2019-60]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Costruzioni
Aeronautiche Tecnam S.p.A.

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from a specified requirement of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before October 15, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2019-0694
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Pellicano, AIR-691, Small
Airplane Standards Branch, Policy & Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
(816) 329-4090.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2019.
Brandon Roberts,
Acting Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2019-0694.
    Petitioner: Costruzioni Aeronautiche Tecnam S.p.A.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  23.1419(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The proposed exemption, if granted,
would allow certification of the petitioner's Model P2012 Traveler
airplanes for flight into known icing conditions without having to meet
the ice protection system testing requirements. If granted, this relief
from Sec.  23.1419(b) would be allowed for a maximum of 16 airplanes
and would be time-limited for a period of eight months until the
airplanes are retrofitted with lift detector devices.

[FR Doc. 2019-20548 Filed 9-23-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 79325]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-499-000]

RE Mustang 3 LLC; Supplemental Notice that Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding RE
Mustang 3 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 6, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also 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>.

    Dated: December 14, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-31968 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


United States Prevention, Pesticides September 24, 2003 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances Agency ( 7508C)

Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision ( TRED) for Lactofen 1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant:

This is the Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or the Agency) " Report of the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) Tolerance Reassessment Progress and Risk Management Decision for Lactofen," which was approved on September 24, 2003. This document is also known as a Tolerance Reassessment Decision, or TRED. A Notice of Availability of this tolerance reassessment decision and an announcement of a 30 day public comment period will be published in the Federal Register shortly.

Regulatory Determination The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), as amended by FQPA, requires EPA to reassess all the tolerances for registered chemicals in effect on or before the enactment of the FQPA on August 3, 1996. In reassessing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from non occupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. Once a safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern, the tolerances are considered reassessed. Existing tolerances associated with lactofen must be reassessed in accordance with FFDCA, as amended by FQPA. Ecological and occupational assessments were originally conducted when lactofen was first registered. Therefore, no further ecological or occupational assessments are being conducted as part of this TRED.

The Agency has evaluated the dietary risk associated with all currently registered uses of lactofen and has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to lactofen when considering dietary exposure and all other non occupational sources of pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information. Therefore, no mitigation measures are needed, and the two ( 2) tolerances established for residues of lactofen in/ on raw agricultural commodities are now considered reassessed as safe under section 408( q) of the FFDCA.

As part of the TRED, the Agency also considered petitions for establishment of new food uses and associated tolerances of lactofen on cotton and peanuts. To evaluate the tolerance petition and determine if new tolerances should be established, EPA considered all of the criteria described above to 2 ensure that the FQPA safety standard was met. For the proposed new food uses of lactofen on cotton and peanuts, the Agency has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to lactofen. However, because the TRED pertains only to the existing tolerances, the establishment of the new food uses and associated tolerances is outside the scope of this TRED and will be determined by a separate decision.

The Agency's human health findings for the pesticide lactofen are summarized in the enclosed chemical overview of the risk assessments. For further details, please refer to the enclosed list of risk assessments and other technical documents pertaining to the lactofen TRED, which are available on the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ e dockets and in the public docket for viewing.

FQPA Assessment FQPA requires that EPA consider " available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and " other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity." The Agency considers other substances because low level exposures to multiple chemical substances that cause a common toxic effect by a common mechanism could lead to the same adverse health effect, as would a higher level of exposure to any of the other substances individually.

Lactofen belongs to the diphenyl ether class of chemicals. The Agency has not yet determined whether lactofen and the other diphenyl ether herbicides exhibit a common mechanism of toxicity. Therefore, the Agency defers any cumulative risk assessment to a later date. For the purposes of tolerance reassessment for lactofen, EPA is assuming no common mechanism with other compounds. Therefore, a cumulative assessment was not conducted for this TRED. However, because lactofen is expected to degrade to acifluorfen in the environment, EPA did consider the contribution of acifluorfen from use of sodium acifluorfen as an herbicide and as an environmental degradate of lactofen in the aggregate assessment.

Based on currently available data, lactofen does not appear to be an endocrine disruptor. However, when the appropriate screening and/ or testing protocols being considered under the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program have been developed, lactofen may be subjected to additional screening and/ or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.

Tolerance Summary Tolerances for lactofen in or on raw agricultural commodities for plants are currently established for the combined residues of lactofen and its associated metabolites containing the diphenyl ether linkage, but will be revised to include only lactofen per se. The two existing tolerances for lactofen have been reassessed and will be lowered from 0.05 ppm to 0.01 ppm. There are currently no tolerances for lactofen in processed commodities or animal commodities, and the available residue data indicate that tolerances for these commodities are not necessary. No maximum residue limits ( MRLs) for lactofen have been established or proposed by Codex. Therefore, there are no international compatibility issues with respect to U. S. tolerances. A summary of the lactofen tolerance reassessment and recommended modifications in commodity definitions are presented in Table 1. 3 Table 1. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Lactofen.

Commodity Established Tolerance ( ppm) a Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) b Comment [ Correct Commodity Definition]

Tolerances listed under 40 CFR § 180.432( a):

Beans, snap 0.05 0.01 Beans, snap, succulent ( excluding Limas)

Soybean 0.05 0.01 Soybean, seed a Expressed in terms of lactofen and its metabolites containing the diphenyl ether linkage b Expressed in terms of lactofen per se As previously mentioned, the Agency has considered petitions for new food uses on cotton and peanuts in the TRED, but the decision to establish new tolerances will be made separately by the Agency. The residue chemistry data for cotton and peanuts has been reviewed and included in the dietary risk assessment for this TRED.

Uses Subject to TRED and Label Amendments The food and feed uses and associated use patterns subject to this TRED are listed in Table 2. The lactofen labels must conform with the use patterns and use limitations listed in Table 2, which follows. Table 2 does not include the forestry use, as this use is not expected to impact the dietary exposure of any population subgroup and, therefore, is not included in this assessment.

Additional Generic Data Requirements As mentioned in the attached Overview of Lactofen FQPA Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment, several confirmatory data requirements have been identified for lactofen. These are listed in Table 3 and will be included in a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) section 3( c)( 2)( B) data call in ( DCI) to be sent under separate cover. These data are not expected to change the regulatory conclusions for lactofen described in this document. 4 This document summarizes the Agency's decision on the tolerance reassessment for lactofen. Please contact Christina Scheltema of my staff with any questions regarding this decision. She may be reached by phone at ( 703) 308 2201 or by e mail at scheltema. christina@ epa. gov.

Sincerely,

Betty Shackleford, Acting Director Special Review and Reregistration Division Enclosures: Technical Support Documents for the Lactofen TRED Overview of Lactofen FQPA Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment 5 Table 2. Food/ Feed Use Patterns Subject to Tolerance Reassessment for Lactofen ( PC Code 128888).

Application Timing Application Type Application Equipment Formulation [ EPA Reg. No.] Max. Single Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) Max. #

Apps./ season Minimum Retreatment Interval ( Days) Use Limitations Cotton ( Non Food Use)

Postemergence directed ground applications to plants at least 6 inches in height Ground equipment 2 lb/ gal EC [ 59639 34] 0.4 2 None A 70 day PHI is specified.

A 12 hour REI is specified.

Applications may include crop oil concentrate at up to 2 pt/ A or a non ionic surfactant at 2 pt/ 100 gal of spray solution.

For banded applications, the application rate and broadcast volume should be reduced in proportion to the area treated.

Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

Do not graze animals on forage or stubble or utilize hay or straw for animal feed or bedding.

Soybeans Broadcast and banded, pre and postemergence applications Ground or aerial equipment 2 lb/ gal EC [ 59639 34] 0.3  preemergence 0.2  postemergence 2 None A 12 hour REI is specified.

Do not apply within 45 days of harvest or after growth stage R6 ( full seed); 90 day PHI is specified in NY.

Do not graze animals on forage or stubble or utilize hay or straw for animal feed or bedding.

Do not apply more than 0.3 lb ai/ A preemergence per season and more than a total of 0.4 lb ai/ A/ season ( 0.2 lb ai/ A/ season in NY)

Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.

Minimum application volumes of 5 and 10 gal/ A are specified for aerial and ground applications, respectively.

For banded applications, the application rate and broadcast volume should be reduced in proportion to the area treated.

Applications may include 0.125 2% ( v/ v) of a crop oil concentrate or 0.25% of a non ionic surfactant. Application Timing Application Type Application Equipment Formulation [ EPA Reg. No.] Max. Single Application Rate ( lb ai/ A) Max. #

Apps./ season Minimum Retreatment Interval ( Days) Use Limitations 6 Soybeans ( continued)

Postemergence broadcast or banded applications Ground equipment 2.4 lb/ gal EC [ 59639 92] 0.13 2 None A 60 day PHI is specified.

Do not graze animals on forage or stubble or utilize hay or straw for animal feed or bedding.

A minimum application volume of 15 gal/ A is specified.

Applications may include 1 2 pts./ A of crop oil concentrate or methylated seed oil.

Do not apply by air.

Do not rotate to crops other than soybeans or field corn within 30 days of the last application. Do not rotate to small grains for at least 120 days after the last application.

Snap beans ( in OR and TN only)

Preemergence broadcast application within 48 hours of planting.

Ground equipment 2 lb/ gal EC [ 59639 34] 0.22  OR 0.25  TN 1 Not Applicable Restricted to use in OR and TN.

A 55 day PHI is specified.

Apply no later than 48 hours after planting.

Do not apply to soils with high sand contents ( sandy loams, loamy sands, and gravelly sandy loams) 7 Table 3. Confirmatory Data Requirements for Lactofen OPPTS Guideline Number Guideline Name Compound( s) Which Must be Tested Comment/ Rationale 870.3700 Prenatal developmental toxicity study in rabbits Technical Data gap 860.1850 Confined Rotational Crop Study Pure active ingredient radiolabeled Required because confined rotational crop study in root crops indicated minimal uptake of radioactivity in carrots and radishes planted after lactofen application.

830.7050 UV/ Visible Absorption Technical ( 76% ai) EPA Reg. No. 59639 94 Formulation Intermediate ( 60% ai) EPA Reg. No. 59639 70 New Guideline Requirement 8 Technical Support Documents for the Lactofen TRED 1. Michael Metzger ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Lactofen. Revisions to HED Tolerance Reassessment Risk Assessment. August 12, 2003.

2. Christine Olinger ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Lactofen: Preliminary Human Health Risk Assessment for Tolerance Reassessment Incorporating Revised Cancer Unit Risks. October 12, 2000.

3. Robert Fricke ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Lactofen: Report of the Mechanism of Toxicity Assessment Review Committee. March 12, 2001.

4. ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Cancer Assessment Document: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential of Lactofen ( Second Review). Cancer Assessment Review Committee. May 21, 2002.

5. James Wolf ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ EFED). Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Lactofen Updated for Prospective Ground Water ( PGW) Monitoring Study. January 21, 2003.

6. James Wolf ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ EFED). EFED Review of Lactofen Small Scale Prospective Ground Water Monitoring Study 166 1. February 26, 2003.

7. Kit Farwell ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Sodium Acifluorfen. Revision to the HED Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Document. July 14, 2003.

8. Elizabeth Mendez ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ HED). Lactofen: Toxicology Evaluation. March 2, 2000.

9. Brenda Tarplee ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ EFED). Lactofen  Report of the FQPA Safety Factor Committee. March 25, 2000 10. George Keitt. ( USEPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ BEAD). RED Use Profile Report for Lactofen. April 7, 1998.