[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 121 (Monday, June 26, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41397]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13482]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0067; FRL-10578-05-OCSPP]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses May 2023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0067, through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information
you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting and visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Rosenblatt, Registration Division
(RD) (7505T), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected]. The mailing address for each contact person is
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each application
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
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.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

A. Notice of Receipt--New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Number: 279-3637, 279-3638, 279-3639, 279-3640,
279-3641, 279-3642, 279-3643. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0062.
Applicant: FMC Corporation, 2929 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104.
Active ingredient: Fluindapyr. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use:
Soybean, sod farms, and turf and ornamentals in residential areas.
Contact: RD.
    2. EPA Registration Numbers: 279-9586, 279-9597, 279-9598, 279-
9629, 279-9596. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0079. Applicant: The
IR-4 Project, NC State University, Campus Box 7710, Raleigh, NC 27695.
Active ingredient: Indoxacarb. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use:
New uses on coffee; strawberry; sunflower subgroup 20B; crop group
expansions to cottonseed subgroup 20C; edible podded bean subgroup 6-
22A; field corn subgroup 15-22C; pulses, dried shelled bean, except
soybean, subgroup 6-22E; succulent shelled bean subgroup 6-22C; sweet
corn subgroup 15-22D; crop group conversions to brassica, leafy greens
subgroup 4-16B; fruit, pome, group 11-10 except pear; fruit, stone,
group 12-12; leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B; leafy greens subgroup
4-16A; pear, Asian; vegetable, brassica, head and stem group 5-16; and
vegetable fruiting, group 8-10 including tolerances for the orphan
crops celtuce; chickpea, dry seed; fennel, Florence, fresh leaves and
stalk; and kohlrabi. Contact: RD.
    3. EPA Registration Number: 7969-402 and 7969-405. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0238. Applicant: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient:
Mefentrifluconazole. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Seed
treatment on legume vegetable group (crop group 6-22). Contact: RD.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 14, 2023.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2023-13482 Filed 6-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Page 1 of 3 April 14, 2006 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HUMAN STUDIES REVIEW BOARD ( HSRB) May 2   4, 2006 PUBLIC MEETING Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites Alexandria   Historic District 625 First Street Alexandria, VA 22314 703 548 8032 HSRB WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ osa/ hsrb/ Docket Telephone: ( 202) 566 1752 Docket Number: EPA HQ ORD 2006 0310 CHARGE TO THE BOARD Part 1. Chromium Hexavalent chromium is a component of a pesticide product intended to be used as a wood preservative. Members of the general public may experience dermal exposure to residues of hexavalent chromium remaining on wood treated with a wood preservative. Because chromium has caused allergic contact dermatitis ( ACD) in occupational settings, EPA has determined that it should assess the potential for ACD in the general public resulting from the use of wood preservatives containing chromium.

In a meeting of the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel ( SAP) in May 2004, EPA obtained independent peer review of scientific issues related to the assessment of the potential dermal risk resulting from exposure to chromium. See www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ 2004/ final. doc The Agency has carefully considered the report of the SAP, as well as the advice of EPA scientists through the steering committee of the Agency's Science Policy Council. Taking all of this into account, EPA has derived a " sensitization reference dose" ( RfD) based on the 10% Minimum Elicitation Threshold ( MET 10) and use of a 10 fold uncertainty factor for potential variability within the human population and other uncertainties. See ADTAC Memorandum, " Hexavalent Chromium  Finalization of Issues related to Quantitation of Dermal Risk from exposure to treated wood containing hexavalent chromium," August 31, 2004.

1. Scientific considerations:

EPA has identified a study performed with subjects who had documented sensitivity to chromium ( Nethercott, et al., 1994). The study was conducted to identify a level of exposure to chromium below which dermal exposure did not appear to elicit an ACD response. Regarding the Nethercott human study, the Page 2 of 3 Agency has concluded that the study contains information sufficient for assessing human risk resulting from potential dermal exposure.

Please comment on whether the Nethercott study is sufficiently sound, from a scientific perspective, to be used to estimate a safe level of dermal exposure to hexavalent chromium.

2. Ethical considerations:

The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the Nethercott study was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

Part 2. Carbofuran Carbofuran is an N methyl carbamate ( NMC) pesticide whose primary toxic effect is neurotoxicity caused by the inhibition of the enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, via carbamylation followed by rapid recovery. Carbofuran can, at sufficiently high doses, lead to a variety of clinical signs. The Agency is conducting acute, aggregate ( single chemical, multi route) and worker risk assessments of carbofuran. In addition, carbofuran is a member of the N methyl carbamate common mechanism group and is thus included in the cumulative ( multi chemical, multi route) risk assessment for the NMCs.

1. Scientific considerations:

The Agency's WOE document and DERs for carbofuran describe the study design and results of a carbofuran human oral study and two human dermal toxicity studies. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions that these studies are useful in establishing points of departure, both oral and dermal, for the single chemical assessment and in informing the interspecies uncertainty factor for the cumulative assessment.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports these conclusions.

2. Ethical considerations:

The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following: Page 3 of 3 a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of any of the human studies conducted with carbofuran was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the studies was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?

Part 3. Methyl Isothiocyanate ( MITC)

MITC is an irritating compound that has a limited animal database for toxicity via inhalation, the key route of exposure. MITC can be used as a pesticide directly to treat wood poles, but the major pathway of exposure to MITC is from degradation of several fumigant pesticides ( i. e., metam sodium, metam potassium, and dazomet). Due to its volatility, MITC has the potential to move off site, which can result in exposure to bystanders near treated areas and, through ambient air, to people far away from treated areas. Use of the soil fumigants also results in exposure to those handling the pesticides or working in treated fields.

1. Scientific considerations:

The Agency's WOE document and DER for MITC describe the study design and results of the MITC odor threshold and eye irritation human studies. The WOE document also discusses the Agency's conclusions that the eye irritation study is useful for the assessment of potential effects on bystanders and workers from exposures to MITC during acute ( 1 day) intervals. The Agency has concluded that the odor threshold study is less useful than the eye irritation study for assessing the human health effects of MITC, since the odor detection threshold for humans is higher than the level that causes eye irritation. The Agency has decided, however, to use the results of the eye irritation study for assessing the inhalation exposure of MITC.

Please comment on the scientific evidence that supports this conclusion.

2. Ethical considerations:

The Agency requests that the Board provide comment on the following:

a. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of the human eye irritation study with MITC was fundamentally unethical?

b. Is there clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of this study was significantly deficient relative to the ethical standards prevailing at the time the research was conducted?


OMB No. 2060-0347

Join the Small Business ENERGY STAR Network

Yes, I would like to join the Network of small businesses working with ENERGY STAR.

I believe that greater energy efficiency can increase the financial health of my organization and aid in preserving the environment for future generations. On behalf of my organization, I pledge to buy ENERGY STAR equipment and upgrade the energy efficiency of my facilities whenever financially viable. As part of the Network, I may use the ENERGY STAR promotional mark in accordance with the ENERGY STAR identity guidelines.

* indicates a required field.

Type of Organization *

 Small Business

 Non-Profit

Contact Information *

Your e-mail address is used only to send your “Welcome to ENERGY STAR” package and your quarterly “ENERGY STAR E-Update” (4 issues annually). Your e-mail address will not be “spammed” or sold by ENERGY STAR.

Do you Rent or Own? *

 Rent

 Own

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 minute per response.  Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.  Include the OMB control number in any correspondence.  Do not send the completed form to this address.

EPA Form 5900-21


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18066-18072]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7775]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-9288-9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Norwood PCBs Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Norwood PCBs
Superfund Site (Site), located in Norwood Massachusetts from the
National Priorities List (NPL). 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).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, through the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), because
EPA has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
other than operation, maintenance, and five-year reviews have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under CERCLA.

DATES: This direct final deletion is effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by May 2, 2011. If adverse comment(s) are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
deletion in the Federal Register informing the public that the deletion
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: 1-617-918-0327.
     Mail: Daniel Keefe, U.S. EPA Remedial Project Manager, 5
Post Office Square (OSRR07-1), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
     Hand delivery to the following address: Daniel Keefe, 5
Post Office Square (OSRR07-1), Boston, MA 02109. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the EPA's normal hours of operation (9 a.m. to 5
p.m.), and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1986-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    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 statue. 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 either:

EPA Region 1 Record Center, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 1-617-918-1440, Hours: Mon-Fri 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Norwood Morrill Memorial Library, 33 Walpole Street, Norwood, MA,
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Mon-Thurs 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 10 a.m.
to 5 p.m.; Saturday 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Sunday 2 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Keefe, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1; 5 Post Office
Square, Boston, MA 02109; Mailcode: OSRR07-01, or by phone at (617)
918-1327, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 1 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion for
the Norwood PCBs Superfund site (Site) thus removing the Site from the
National Priorities List (NPL). 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 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.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA receives
adverse comments by May 2, 2011. Along with this direct final Notice of
Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of Intent to Delete in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register. If adverse comments
are received within the 30-day public comment period on this deletion
action, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final
Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and the
deletion will not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a
response to comments and continue with the deletion process on the
basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    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 Norwood PCBs Superfund Site
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Site from the NPL unless adverse
comments are received during the public comment period.

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 State, 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 CERLA 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 of Massachusetts prior to
developing this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of
Intent to Delete co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section
of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the Commonwealth thirty (30) working days for
review of this Notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior
to their publication today, and the Commonwealth, through the MassDEP,
has concurred on the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Norwood Record. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) 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.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before its
effective date and will prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments already received.
    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

    The Norwood PCBs Superfund Site (CERCLIS No. MAD980670566) is
located in Norwood, Massachusetts, approximately 14 miles southwest of
the City of Boston. Land use consists predominately of industrial/
commercial properties and associated parking areas in an industrial/
commercial area. To the north, the Site is bordered by residential
properties, to the east by Route 1 and the Dean Street access road, to
the south by Dean Street, and to the west by residential properties.
The northern portion of the Site consists of a portion of Meadow Brook.
    Contamination originated from disposal practices of the parties who
owned the property or operated businesses on the Site (the Facility).
The former on-site building was constructed in 1942 by Bendix Aviation
Corporation, which produced navigational control systems for the U.S.
Navy. In October 1947, the land was purchased by Tobe Deutschman
Corporation, which manufactured electrical equipment. The property was
purchased in 1956 by Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc., which also
manufactured electrical equipment at the facility. In January 1960, the
property was owned by Maryvale Corporation, and was then purchased by
the Friedland brothers. The Friedland brothers leased the property to
Federal Pacific Electric Company, which held the lease on the property
until October 1979. During the period from 1960 to 1979, Federal
Pacific Electric Company operated a business at the Site, and sublet
portions of the facility to Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc. and to
Arrow Hart Corporation, which also manufactured electrical equipment.
In 1979, the Site was subdivided. The northeastern portion of the Site,
approximately 9 acres, was purchased by Grant Gear Realty Trust, which
leased the facility to Grant Gear Works, Inc., to produce gears for
various industries. The southern and western portions of the Site,
approximately 16 acres, were purchased by Paul Birmingham, Paul
Reardon, and Jack Reardon who further subdivided the property into
seven lots and added a new private way (Kerry Place). On the east site
of the Site runs Meadow Brook through a property owned by the Town of
Norwood which contains a town sewer easement.
    In 1983, MassDEP received a call from an abutting resident
reporting past industrial waste dumping and contamination in the then
vacant field of Kerry Place. As a result, an initial investigation was
conducted which confirmed the presence of PCBs. EPA contractors
assisted MassDEP with the collection of samples and based on these
findings, it was determined that an emergency removal was warranted.
EPA removed and disposed (off-site) 518 tons of contaminated soil.
During the removal, water samples taken from the storm drain system
behind the Grant Gear Building indicated low levels of PCBs. In October
1984, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL (49 FR 40320) and
was formally added on June 10, 1986 (51 FR 21054).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was completed
in 1989. During the investigation the following media were evaluated:
air, surface soil, subsurface soil, dredge piles, Meadow Brook
sediments, surface water, groundwater, and the Grant Gear Building. The
highest concentration of PCBs in soil was in a former disposal area in
the western and northern portions of the Grant Gear property where up
to 26,000 parts per million (ppm) were identified. The estimated total
volume of contaminated soil in both saturated and unsaturated soil with
PCB concentrations greater than 10 ppm was 31,550 cubic yards (yd\3\).
Soils were also found to be contaminated, although to a lesser extent,
with VOCs, SVOCs and metals.

    Contaminants released to Meadow Brook included PCBs, VOCs, and
metals. Within sediments, the primary transport mechanism for PCBs was
the movement of sediment to which the PCBs are attached. PCBs detected
in sediment ranged up to 1,100 ppm in Meadow Brook and up to 3,850 ppm
in former sediment dredge piles.
    With regard to groundwater, contaminants include PCBs, VOCs and
SVOCs with the highest concentrations generally being detected west of
the former Grant Gear building. Groundwater contamination was detected
in both overburden and bedrock aquifers with trichloroethylene having
the highest concentration (1,800 parts per billion (ppb)) in overburden
and vinyl chloride in bedrock (110 ppb).

Selected Remedy

    In September 1989, EPA issued a ROD for the Norwood PCBs site. The
Remedial Action Objectives outlined in the 1989 ROD to address
contaminated buildings, soils, sediments, and groundwater at the Site
are as follows:
     To minimize the continued release of hazardous substances
to Meadow Brook.
     To reduce risks to workers associated with direct contact
with PCB-contaminated surfaces.
     To reduce risks to workers associated with inhalation of
airborne PCBs within the Grant Gear Building.
     Reduce risks posed by direct contact with soil
contaminated with PCBs and P AHs.
     Reduce risks posed by incidental ingestion of soils
contaminated with PCBs and PAHs.
     Mitigate any future impacts of such remedial activities to
Meadow Brook and the surrounding wetland areas.
     Minimize migration of VOCs to groundwater.
     Reduce, within a reasonable time frame, risks to workers
posed by inhalation of airborne contaminants volatilized from
groundwater.
     Reduce risks to human health and the environment from
current and future migration of contaminants in groundwater.
    Major components of the 1989 remedy include:
     Decontamination of surfaces of machinery, equipment, and
floors within the plant areas of the Grant Gear Building;
     Excavation of approximately 34,000 cubic yards of PCB-
contaminated soils and sediments and treatment by solvent extraction;
     Backfilling of soils and sediments to be covered with
asphalt or clean fill;
     Construction and operation of a Groundwater Treatment
Plant (GWTP) to remediate groundwater;
     Restoration of impacted wetlands;
     Long-term monitoring; and
     Institutional controls (ICs)
    As a result of higher than anticipated solvent extraction costs and
logistical problems with its implementation, and in consideration of
the likely commercial/industrial reuse of the property, EPA issued a
ROD Amendment in May 1996. The ROD Amendment included the demolition of
the Grant Gear building, the excavation and consolidation of
contaminated soils and sediments on site, and the construction of a
permanent cap. Soil and sediment clean-up goals were further modified
as discussed in the Cleanup Goals section.
    In accordance with EPA's 1996 Final Ground Water Use and Value
Determination Guidance, in May 2001, MassDEP submitted a ``low'' use
and value determination for the groundwater at and in the vicinity of
the Site. This determination was made based on the aquifer's
classification as a non-potential drinking water source area, as well
as the fact that nearby residential and commercial properties are
supplied by public, municipal drinking water sources.
    As a result of MassDEP's ``low'' use and value determination, the
contaminant exposure pathways and exposure assumptions used for the ROD
were re-evaluated. Accordingly, supplemental risk assessment activities
were initiated in 2001 and were completed in 2004. As the result of
these assessments, revised groundwater clean-up levels, or risk-based
action levels (RBALs), were calculated. These were subsequently adopted
as groundwater Cleanup goals in a 2005 Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD). Current groundwater clean-up goals are listed in the
Clean-up Goal section.

Response Actions

    Remedial activities were completed in a single Operable Unit (OU);
however, the activities consisted of the following phases: Phase 1 was
completed by the EPA and consisted of groundwater treatment plant
construction and operation; Phase 2 was conducted by the Settling
Parties and consisted of building demolition; Phase 3 was conducted
jointly by the Settling Parties and EPA and consisted of the
construction of a cap and cover over consolidated contaminated soil and
sediments (Phase 3A--Settling Party-lead) and Meadow Brook Restoration
(Phase 3B--EPA lead).
    For EPA-lead activities, such as the GWTP, the design criteria were
set forth in the final ``Plans and Specifications for the Groundwater
Remediation at the Norwood PCB Superfund Site'' prepared by Metcalf &
Eddy, Inc. on behalf of EPA in 1994. Meadow Brook Restoration Phase
(Phase 3b) was completed in accordance with a UASCE Statement of Work
(SOW), which included design details provided by the Town of Norwood as
part of its flood control/flood mitigation project. Design criteria for
the Settling Party-lead cleanup work (to address risks associated with
the former Grant Gear facility and its operations) were set forth in
the Statement of Work (SOW) which was part of a 1996 Consent Decree
with former owners and operators of the Facility (hereafter referred to
as the ``Facility CD'') as well as the Remedial Action Work Plans
submitted by the Settling Parties and approved by EPA consistent with
the SOW.
Sediment
    The Settling Parties performed excavation of sediments in Meadow
Brook from April 1997 through July 1998. The Meadow Brook remediation
was divided into three sections referred to as Reach 1, 2, and 3. The
excavation of Reach 1 was completed with excavation limits determined
by the Town of Norwood as this section of the Brook was also targeted
for sediment removal as part of the Town's flood control/flood
mitigation project. Following the excavation of Reach 1 to grades
provided by the Town, an area of stained soils was evident at/below a
former drainage outfall pipe. Based on the analytical results showing
PCBs greater than 1 ppm, a limited removal of the stained sediment was
performed. In total, approximately 2,500 yd\3\ of material was
excavated from Reach 1including 85 yd\3\ of stained soil.
    The excavation of Reaches 2 and 3 was performed in two phases--the
first consisted of sediment removal from the arched culvert section at
Dean Street, and the second consisted of sediment removal from the box
culvert section. Once clean-up levels (1 ppm in sediment) were
achieved, sediment removal activities were terminated. Approximately
2,300 yd\3\ of material was excavated from these reaches.
Soil
    Soils with PCB concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up
levels were excavated from several on-property areas. In addition, a
trichlorobenzene (TCB)-contaminated soil area was identified west of
the former Grant Gear building; this was

also excavated. Approximately 5,900 yd\3\ of PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from the North Cover Area and stockpiled for placement under
the cap/cover. Approximately 2,600 yd\3\ of PCB-contaminated soil was
excavated from the South Cover Area and stockpiled for placement under
the cap/cover.
    With regard to off-property soils, several areas were identified
with PCB concentrations exceeding the appropriate clean-up levels.
During the remediation of Reach 1 of Meadow Brook, PCB-contaminated
soils were identified along the North Bank Wooded Area. Approximately
100 yd\3\ of soil was excavated and stockpiled for placement under the
cap/cover. In addition, PCB-contaminated soils were discovered along
the South Bank Wooded Area resulting in the excavation of approximately
780 yd\3\ of soil.
    Beginning in 1997, the stockpiled soils were further consolidated
on-site. Materials with PCB concentrations exceeding the risk-based,
site-specific industrial/commercial clean-up levels (of 70 ppm) were
placed within the limits of the asphalt cap. Materials with PCB
concentrations below clean-up level of 70 ppm, but above 40 ppm, were
placed within the limits of the cover areas. During soil excavation and
consolidation, on-site underground storage tanks (USTs) were also
removed before the cap and cover were installed. After the PCB-
contaminated materials had been placed, the areas were prepared for the
installation of the cap and covers. Once the fill was placed to the
appropriate grade 12 inches below the final grade in capped and covered
areas, a non-woven geotextile filter fabric was laid across the areas.
Subsequently, an asphalt Cap or gravel cover was installed in the
appropriate areas.
Groundwater
    The selected remedy for the management of groundwater migration
included the collection of groundwater using an extraction system
consisting shallow extraction wells and the construction of a GWTP
consisting of carbon adsorption, air stripping, precipitation, and
filtration. The GWTP was constructed in 1995 and deemed operational and
functional in February 1997.
    The groundwater treatment system was operational until it was shut
down (at that time temporarily) in June of 2000. As a result of the
revised groundwater classification and ``low'' use and value ascribed
by MassDEP in 2001, groundwater cleanup goals were further modified in
an 2005 ESD. Subsequently, EPA determined that no further groundwater
clean-up was warranted as revised clean-up goals were being met. The
GWTP was dismantled in March 2008 just prior to property redevelopment.
Institutional Controls
    As required by a Prospective Purchaser Agreement (PPA) entered in
1997 between the owner and the EPA, the Owner updated and recorded
(with the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds) updated ICs in the form of
a Grant of Environmental Restrictions and Easement (GERE). The GERE was
recorded in March 2008 and entered into Book No. 25628, Page No. 534.
The GERE restricts certain activities such as day care, residential
use, and groundwater withdrawal (among others) and permits other
activities, such as excavation, provided certain safety procedures are
followed and approvals obtained. Under the terms of a 1997 Consent
Decree (hereafter referred to as the ``Meadow Brook CD'') the Town of
Norwood also established ICs on the Meadow Brook parcel (recorded at
Book No. 26407, Page No. 129).

Cleanup Goals

    The cleanup goals for PBCs in soil and sediment were modified as a
result the 1996 ROD Amendment (see table below):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Property                               1989 ROD                           1996 ROD-A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gear Property....................  10 ppm.............................  40 ppm surface.
                                                                              70 ppm subsurface.
Adjacent Commercial Property...........  25 ppm.............................  40 ppm surface.
                                                                              70 ppm subsurface.
Soil between Grant Gear and Meadow       1 ppm..............................  10 ppm surface.
 Brook.                                                                       50 ppm subsurface.
Sediment...............................  1 ppm..............................  1 ppm.
Residential Properties.................  1 ppm..............................  No action required.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contaminated soil and sediment were excavated and consolidated on
property for placement within the cap or cover depending on the level
of contamination. Post-excavation sampling was conducted and described
in the remedial action Remediation Completion Report prepared by
consultants on behalf of the Settling Parties.
    With regard to Groundwater, as described previously, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts classified groundwater beneath and
adjacent to the site as ``Low'' use and value. A ``Low'' designation
indicates that it is not a future drinking water source. Accordingly,
change to the original GW cleanup goals (which were based on MCLs) were
documented in the 2005 ESD and are summarized below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Contaminant                 1989 ROD             2005 ESD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trichloroethene...............  5 ppb..............  108 ppb.
Tetrachloroethene.............  5 ppb..............  37 ppb.
Vinyl Chloride................  2 ppb..............  310 ppb.
Total 1,2-dichloroethenes.....  175 ppb............  3660 ppb.
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene........  350 ppb............  34 ppb.
1,4-dichlorobenzene...........  5 ppb..............  4.6 ppb.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring from April 1996
until October 2002 which coincided with the period of GWTP operation
and shortly thereafter. Surface water samples were also periodically
collected from

Meadow Brook. Several years after plant shutdown (i.e. in 2005), EPA
completed a final comprehensive groundwater evaluation and the
resulting report documented no ROD-specified contaminants in
groundwater above their respective groundwater clean-up goals
established in the ESD. Having confirmed that all groundwater clean-up
goals were being met (approximately 5 years after GWTP shut down), it
was determined by USEPA and MassDEP that the GWTP was no longer
necessary.

Operation and Maintenance

    As described previously, remedial activities were completed in 3
phases (the third phase consisting of both a Phase 3A and Phase 3B).
Phase 1--Groundwater Treatment Plant
    Based on achieving revised groundwater clean-up goals modified in
the 2005 ESD, in 2006, EPA determined that the GWTP had reached the end
of its ``useful life'' for all uses relative to site response
activities. Accordingly, EPA proceeded to remove chemical processing
equipment from the GWTP and decommission extraction and monitoring
wells that were not part of the long-term monitoring. In a letter dated
April 5, 2007, EPA provided notice to the owner that, as per the PPA,
EPA had completed its decommissioning activities. Subsequently, on May
16, 2007, EPA received notice from the owner of his intention not to
reuse the GWTP building. A work plan for its dismantling was submitted
and approved in September 2007. The building was removed in the Spring
of 2008. No long-term O&M of the treatment plant is required. On-going
evaluation of groundwater is provided by groundwater samples collected
by the Settling Parties to the Facility CD as part of their on-going
O&M of the Cap and Covers (see Phase 3A below).
Phase 2--Building Demolition
    The building demolition phase took place immediately prior to and
in connection with the relocation of soil and sediment, and the
construction of the cap and covers. Accordingly there is no O&M
associated with this RA.
Phase 3A--Cap and Covers
    The O&M and Environmental Monitoring Plans (EMP) were approved in
November 2004. Consistent with these plans, the Settling Parties to the
Facility CD annually inspect the cap and covers. As a result of
redevelopment, certain cover areas have been replaced with a new type
of cover (referred to as ``foundation cover''). In addition, certain
monitoring wells selected for long-term monitoring have been re-
located. Accordingly, revised O&M and EMP plans were submitted in April
2010 and subsequently approved in January 2011.
Phase 3B--Meadow Brook Restoration
    At the completion of this restoration, and in light of design
details provided by the Town of Norwood to insure consistency with
other flood mitigation projects, an Operation Manual was provided to
the Town of Norwood in 2000. The Operation Manual described recommended
procedures and inspections to ensure that the completed project
continues to function as designed and that the flood control
infrastructure remains in place to prevent the release of any
subsurface contamination.
Institutional Controls
    EPA and the State will periodically (not less than annually)
inspect the property to insure that usage has not deviated from those
allowed by the ICs. Under the GERE recorded on the Facility property,
the landowner is obligated to follow procedures to ensure that Site
redevelopment does not damage components of the remedy. On the Meadow
Brook property, the Town is obligated under the terms of the Meadow
Brook CD to ensure that no release of subsurface contamination occurs
either in its maintenance of flood control structures or its sewer
easement through the area. The status and protectiveness of these IC
will be summarized in successive five year reviews.

Redevelopment

    In 1997, the 9-acre Grant Gear property was sold and the new owner
obtained a PPA from EPA which required the owner to guarantee continued
site access, dismantle the Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) building
(when it had reached the end of its ``useful life''), as well as record
updated Institutional Controls. Subsequently (early 2000s), the owner
entered a 99-year ground lease with a commercial/retail developer. In
2003, the developer proposed a large (> 150,000 square feet)
redevelopment; however, this would have been situated predominantly
over the remedial cap and would have required excavation into
contaminated soil. Based on local concerns associated with disturbing
the capped area, traffic, and other local land use issues, this
redevelopment was not approved by the Town.
    Thus, in 2007, a different commercial/retail developer proposed
modifications to the original redevelopment plan including the
construction of buildings around the footprint of the capped portion of
the site. This reuse would ensure that none of the highest-contaminated
material would be exposed. The revised work plan for redevelopment
(WPR) was approved by EPA and MassDEP in March 2008, after which the
developer received the necessary Town approvals. Construction ensued in
May 2008 and was substantially complete in October 2008.
    As a precaution and to ensure against the accumulation of vapors
from groundwater to indoor air, a passive vapor mitigation system was
required and installed in each of the commercial building. As required
in the WPR, post construction and prior to occupancy, sub-slab air
samples were collected and analyzed and a risk assessment completed.
Based on this analysis, the risks were found to be acceptable (i.e.,
less than 1 x 10-\6\) for a future commercial worker.
Moreover, based on local zoning as well as restriction recorded against
the property (described further below), residential use is prohibited.
In the future, as necessary and pending future monitoring results, the
sub-slab ventilation systems can be made to be actively vented with the
addition of blowers or vacuum pumps.
    Presently, two buildings totaling 56,000 square feet of commercial/
retail space are situated on the Norwood PCBs site. The cap, under
which is located the highest concentrations of PCBs, serves as a
central parking lot for the development. To date, the development is
not occupied.

Five-Year Review

    Since hazardous substances will remain on the site above levels
allowing for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, statutory five
year reviews have been conducted by EPA pursuant to CERCLA Section 121
C as provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance.
    The First Five-Year Review, dated 30 December 1999, concluded that
the remedy was protective and recommended that, in light of the State's
reclassification of groundwater, a risk assessment be competed. Upon
attaining revised risk-based clean-up levels, groundwater treatment was
no longer required, but monitoring was continued to verify that revised
groundwater standards would continue to be met.
    The Second Five-Year Review, dated 29 December 2004, concluded that
the remedy was short-term protective of human health and the
environment based on continued compliance with

new clean-up goals. In addition, O&M plans were submitted for both the
Facility and Meadow Brook properties. The 2004 review also concluded
that in order for the remedy to remain protective in the long-term, the
following actions needed to be taken: 1. updated institutional controls
needed to be recorded, and 2. Operation and Maintenance (including
monitoring) needed to be conducted regularly [both of which have since
occurred].
    The Third Five-Year Review, completed in December 2009, concluded
that the remedy at the Norwood PCBs Site continues to protect human
health and the environment through meeting groundwater clean-up goals,
the establishment of institutional controls, and the maintenance of
remedy infrastructure concurrently during redevelopment of the Site.
The 2009 Five Year Review also concluded that in order for the remedy
to remain protective, the Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Plan and
Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) must be updated to reflect changes
in site conditions as a result of the redevelopment. These have been
updated and approved (January 2011).
    The Fourth Five-Year Review is due in December 2014.

Community Involvement

    EPA community participation at the site has taken many forms. In
addition to statutorily-required meetings and public hearings
associated with the 1989 ROD and 1996 ROD Amendment, EPA has
participated in numerous other outreach activities. EPA conducted
public outreach during each of the three five-year reviews. EPA
prepared updated Fact Sheets in 2003, 2005, and 2007. The Fact Sheets
were distributed to mailing list recipients as well as hand-distributed
to all abutting residences and business owners. Extra copies of the
fact sheets have been made available to the public at the following
locations: the Norwood Public library and Norwood Town Hall.
    In addition, EPA has attended numerous Public Meetings during the
site redevelopment approval process. All Community Involvement
activities required and in association with this proposed deletion have
been completed, including the publication of a notice in a local
newspaper of general circulation regarding this proposed deletion and
the availability of documents located in the Deletion Docket.

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

    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required'' or ``all appropriate fund-
financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further
response action by responsible parties is appropriate''. EPA, with the
concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts through the MassDEP by
a letter dated [Date], believes these criteria for deletion have been
satisfied. Therefore, EPA is proposing the deletion of the site from
the NPL. All of the completion requirements for the site have been met
as described in the Norwood PCBs Final Close Out Report (FCOR) dated
September 2009.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
through the MassDEP has determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance, routine
monitoring, and five year reviews, have been completed. Therefore, EPA
is deleting the Site from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective May 31, 2011 unless EPA receives adverse comments by May
2, 2011. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this direct
final notice of deletion before the effective date of the deletion, and
it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments and
continue with the deletion process on the basis of the notice of intent
to delete and the comments already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

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.

    Dated: March 17, 2011.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ''Norwood
PCBs'', ``Norwood, MA''.

[FR Doc. 2011-7775 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:PHMSA-2016-0087  Draft Environmental Assessment for the City of Bangor, Maine.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57182-57183]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0031]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of Currently-
Approved Information Collection Request: Quarterly Report of Class I
Motor Carriers of Property (Formerly OMB 2139-0002)

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval. FMCSA requests approval to revise an ICR entitled,
``Quarterly Report of Class I Motor Carriers of Property (formerly OMB
2139-0002),'' which the Agency uses to ensure that motor carriers
comply with its financial and operating statistics requirements in
chapter III of title 49 CFR part 369 entitled, ``Reports of Motor
Carriers.'' FMCSA invites public comment on this ICR. On April 20,
2012, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice allowing for a 60-day
comment period on the ICR. In response to the above notice, the Agency
received one comment from the National Motor Freight Traffic
Association, Inc. (NMFTA), which requested that these reports no longer
be required. FMCSA may consider this request in a future rulemaking
regarding this information collection requirement.

DATES: Please send your comments by October 17, 2012. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2012-0031. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of

Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention of
the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Vivian Oliver, Transportation
Specialist, Office of Information Technology, Operations Division,
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email Address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Quarterly Report of Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of
Property (formerly OMB 2139-0002).
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0033.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Class I and Class II Motor Carriers of Property.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 111 (per year).
    Estimated Time per Response: 1.8 hours (27 minutes per quarter).
    Expiration Date: September 30, 2012.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 200 hours [111 respondents x 1.8
hours to complete form = 200].
    Background: The Quarterly Report of Class I and Class II Motor
Carriers of Property (Form QFR) is a mandated reporting requirement for
all for-hire motor carriers (See 49 U.S.C. 14123 and implementing FMCSA
regulations in 49 CFR part 369). Motor carriers (including interstate
and intrastate) subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
are classified on the basis of their gross carrier operating
revenues.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of the Financial and Operating Statistics
(F&OS) program, carriers are classified into three groups: (1) Class
I carriers are those having annual carrier operating revenues
(including interstate and intrastate) of $10 million or more after
applying the revenue deflator formula as set forth in Note A of 49
CFR 369.2; (2) Class II carriers are those having annual carrier
operating revenues (including interstate and intrastate) of at least
$3 million, but less than $10 million after applying the revenue
deflator formula as set forth in 49 CFR 369.2; and (3) Class III
carriers are those having annual carrier operating revenues
(including interstate and intrastate) of less than $3 million after
applying the revenue deflator formula as set forth in Note A of 49
CFR 369.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Financial and Operating Statistics (F&OS) program, FMCSA
collects balance sheet and income statement data from Class I and Class
II property carriers along with information on safety needs, tonnage,
mileage, employees, transportation equipment, and other related data.
FMCSA may also ask carriers to respond to surveys concerning their
operations. The data and information collected would be made publicly
available, and FMCSA would use both to determine a motor carrier's
compliance with the F&OS program requirements prescribed in chapter III
of title of 49 CFR part 369.
    In the past, the former Interstate Commerce Commission issued these
regulations. Later this authority transferred to the Secretary on
January 1, 1996, by Chapter 141 of the ICC Termination Act of
1995(ICCTA) (Pub. L..104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 893 (Dec. 29, 1995)), now
codified at 49 U.S.C. 14123. On September 30, 1998, the Secretary
delegated and transferred the authority to administer the F&OS program
to the former Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), now part of
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).
    On September 29, 2004, the Secretary transferred the responsibility
for the F&OS program from BTS to FMCSA in the belief that the program
was more aligned with FMCSA's mission and its other motor carrier
responsibilities (69 FR 51009). On August 10, 2006, the Secretary
published a final rule (71 FR 45740) that transferred and redesignated
certain motor carrier financial and statistical reporting regulations
of BTS, that were formerly located in chapter XI, subchapter B of title
49 CFR part 1420, to FMCSA under chapter III of title 49 CFR part 369.
    Public Comments Invited: FMCSA requests comments on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued on: September 4, 2012.
Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-22882 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                                 Docket Index
                                 Proposed Rule
Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations
                       (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713)
                                August 30, 2012

A.  Rulemaking Documents
   Docket Index, Proposed Rule, Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations; (Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713), August 30, 2012.

   Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations; Proposed rule. August 30, 2012 (pre-publication version).
B.  Relevant State and District Documents
   B-1.    Letter Correspondence, James D. Boyd, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Daniel W. McGovern, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, January 7, 1993.
   B-2.    Final Appendix IV-C, Transportation Control and Indirect Source Measure Recommendations from the SCAG Regional Counsel, September 1994, excerpt includes TCM-1("Transportation Improvements")..
   B-3.    South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, August 2003.
   B-4.    South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan, June 2007.
   Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality Management District, to Matt Haber, Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, dated September 10, 2008.
   C.  EPA Guidance Documents, Policies and Rulemakings
   C-1.    Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Photochemical Oxidants, Final Rule, 44 Fed. Reg. 8202 (February 9, 1979).
   C-2.    Designation of Areas for Air Quality Purposes, 56 Fed. Reg. 56694 (November 6, 1991).
   C-3.    State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; General preamble for future proposed rulemakings. 57 Fed. Reg. 13498 (April 16, 1992).
   C-4.    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California Ozone, 62 Fed. Reg. 1150 (January 8, 1997).
   C-5.    National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 62 Fed. Reg. 38856 (July 18, 1997).

   C-6.    Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California-South Coast, 65 Fed. Reg. 18903 (April 10, 2000).
   C-7.    Air Quality Designations and Classifications for the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Early Action Compact Areas With Deferred Effective Dates, 69 Fed. Reg. 23858 (April 30, 2004).
   C-8.    Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards-Phase 1, 69 Fed. Reg. 23951 (April 30, 2004).
   C-9.    Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard - Phase 2, 70 Fed. Reg. 71612 (November 29, 2005).

   C-10.    National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, 73 Fed. Reg. 16436 (March 27, 2008).
   C-11.    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2003 State Strategy and 2003 South Coast Plan for One-Hour Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide; Proposed rule. 73 Fed. Reg. 63408 (October 24, 2008).
   C-12.    Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of California; 2003 State Strategy and 2003 South Coast Plan for One-Hour Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide; Final rule. 74 Fed. Reg. 10176 (March 10, 2009).
   C-13.    Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; San Joaquin Valley, South Coast Air Basin, Coachella Valley, and Sacramento Metro 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas; Reclassification, Final rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 24409 (May 5, 2010).
   C-14.    Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Attainment Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Proposed rule. 76 Fed. Reg.  57872 (September 16, 2011).
   C-15.    Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast; Attainment Plan for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard; Final rule. 77 Fed. Reg. 12674 (March 1, 2012).

D. Additional Documents

   D-1.     Memorandum to File, Wienke Tax, EPA Region 9, re: EPA Proposed Rules, Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for California State Implementation Plan Revision; South Coast, and Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations - Conference Call Notes, Conference Call with South Coast Air Quality Management District, September 14, 2012.


[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37255]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-74]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60211; File No. SR-Phlx-2009-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Extension of the Penny Pilot Program

Correction

    In notice document E9-16179 beginning on page 33001 in the issue of
Thursday, July 9, 2009, make the following correction:
    The docket number is corrected to read as set forth above.

[FR Doc. Z9-16179 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 46 (Friday, March 10, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13269-13270]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04770]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0399; FRL-9958-09-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; Nevada, Lake Tahoe; Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Limited Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Nevada (``State''). On December 15, 2003, the EPA redesignated
the Lake Tahoe, Nevada area (area), consisting of the Nevada portion of
the Lake Tahoe basin in Nevada's Washoe, Carson City and Douglas
counties, from

nonattainment to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and approved the State's plan
addressing the area's maintenance of the CO NAAQS for ten years. On
April 3, 2012, the State submitted to the EPA a second CO maintenance
plan for the area that addressed maintenance of the CO NAAQS through
2024. On August 26, 2016, the State submitted a supplement to their
2012 submittal. The EPA is also proposing to approve an alternative CO
monitoring strategy for the area, that the State included in their
August 2016 submittal. We are making this proposal under the Clean Air
Act.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2015-0399 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to John
Kelly, Air Planning Office, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or
edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4151<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA. This proposal addresses the following local
plan, ``2012 Revision to the Nevada State Implementation Plan for
Carbon Monoxide: Updated Limited Maintenance Plan, for the Nevada Side
of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Including Douglas, Carson City and Washoe
Counties.''
    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, we
are approving this local plan in a direct final action without prior
proposal because we believe this SIP revision is not controversial. If
we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in
subsequent action based on this proposed rule.
    We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone
interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not
receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further
information, please see the direct final action.

    Dated: December 22, 2016.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-04770 Filed 3-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 153)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45879-45882]
[DOCID:fr07au08-8]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1030; FRL-8573-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Affirmative Defense Provisions for Malfunctions; Common
Provisions Regulation

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Colorado
on August 1, 2007. This revision establishes affirmative defense
provisions for source owners and operators for excess emissions during
periods of malfunction. The affirmative defense provisions are
contained in the State of Colorado's Common Provisions regulation. The
intended effect of this action is to approve only those portions of
Colorado's Common Provisions regulation submitted on August 1, 2007
that relate to the affirmative defense for malfunctions. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 6, 2008, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by September 8, 2008. If
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
this direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1030, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing
comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-A, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-A, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-1030. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Komp, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Mailcode: 8P-A, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittal
III. EPA Analysis of State Submittal
IV. Consideration of Section 110 (l) of the CAA
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Colorado mean the State of Colorado unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://regulations.gov or e-mail. 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.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. 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.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background of State Submittal

    On August 1 2007, the State of Colorado submitted a formal revision
to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) that added affirmative defense
provisions for excess emissions during periods of malfunctions and
removed existing provisions regarding upsets. These affirmative defense
provisions are contained in the Common Provisions Regulation at
sections I.G. and II.E. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
(AQCC) adopted these revisions on December 15, 2006.
    Previously, EPA, in a letter dated June 13, 2001 from Richard L.
Long, Director, EPA Region 8 Air and Radiation Program, to Margie
Perkins, Director, Colorado's Air Pollution Control Division,
identified concerns with Colorado's existing upset rule in the State's
Common Provisions Regulation. We believed that Colorado's existing
upset rule did not conform to the Clean Air Act requirements to protect
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments and should be revised.
Specifically, the existing upset rule allowed an exemption from
enforcement for excess emissions that occurred during certain defined
``upset conditions.'' EPA's interpretation was and continues to be that
the Clean Air Act requires that all periods of excess emissions be
treated as violations and not exempted from enforcement.
    During 2002, the AQCC considered EPA's position but ultimately
rejected EPA's request for revision and suggested language to the
Common Provisions Regulation to address our findings. On December 22,
2005 we received a petition to issue a SIP call to require Colorado to
revise aspects of its Common Provisions regulation related to upset
conditions. The petitioners were Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action,
Center for Native Ecosystems, and Jeremy Nichols. The petition alleged
that Colorado's exemption for excess emissions during upsets was
inconsistent with the Clean Air Act. The petition referred to our
previous statement that Colorado's upset rule did not conform to the
Clean Air Act.
    The State indicated a willingness to renew efforts to revise the
upset provisions in the Common Provisions regulation, and related
provisions in other regulations. The State's December 15, 2006
Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose for
Revisions to the Common Provisions (that was later submitted on August
1, 2007) indicates that revisions were made regarding upset conditions
and malfunctions to ``clarify the process by which a source must
identify an upset or malfunction.'' The State changed the term
``upset'' to ``malfunction'' for consistency with EPA policy. In
addition, provisions within the Common Provisions were revised to
clarify that an affirmative defense is available to claims of violation
of the AQCC's regulations for civil penalties in enforcement actions
regarding excess emissions arising from malfunctions.

III. EPA Analysis of State Submittal

    EPA's interpretations of the Act regarding excess emissions during
malfunctions are contained in, among other documents, a September 20,
1999 memorandum titled ``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding
Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,'' from
Steven A. Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation.\1\ That memorandum indicates that because excess
emissions might aggravate air quality so as to prevent attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS or jeopardize the PSD increments, all periods
of excess emissions are considered violations of the applicable
emission limitation. However, the memorandum recognizes that in certain
circumstances states and EPA have enforcement discretion to refrain
from taking enforcement action for excess emissions. In addition, the
memorandum also indicates that states can include provisions in their
SIPs that would, in the context of an enforcement action for excess
emissions, excuse a source from penalties (but not injunctive relief)
if the source can demonstrate that it meets certain criteria (an
``affirmative defense'').\2\ Finally, the memorandum indicates that EPA
does not intend to approve SIP revisions that would recognize a state
director's decision to bar EPA's or citizens' ability to enforce
applicable requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Earlier expressions of EPA's interpretations regarding
excess emissions during malfunctions, startup, and shutdown are
contained in two memoranda, one dated September 28, 1992, the other
February 15, 1983, both titled ``Policy on Excess Emissions During
Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions'' and signed by
Kathleen M. Bennett. However, the September 1999 memorandum directly
addresses the creation of affirmative defenses in SIPs and,
therefore, is most relevant to this action.
    \2\ EPA's September 20, 1999 memorandum indicates that the term
affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant,
regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the
merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding. See footnote 4 of the
attachment to the memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have evaluated Colorado's affirmative defense provisions for
malfunctions and find that they are consistent with our interpretations
under the Act regarding the types of affirmative defense provisions we
can approve in SIPs. The Affirmative Defense provisions in the Common
Provisions Regulation, sections I.G and II.E, are consistent with the
provisions for malfunctions we suggested in our September 20, 1999
memorandum. More specifically, section II.E of the Common Provisions
Regulation provides owners and operators with an affirmative defense,
to civil penalties only, for excess emissions during periods of
malfunction. To establish the affirmative defense in an enforcement
action and to be relieved of a civil penalty, the owner or operator of
the facility must meet the notification requirements in section II.E.2
of the Common Provisions Regulation and prove by a preponderance of
evidence the following:
    1. The excess emissions were caused by a sudden, unavoidable
breakdown of equipment, or a sudden, unavoidable failure of a process
to operate in the normal or usual manner, beyond the reasonable control
of the owner or operator;

    2. The excess emissions did not stem from any activity or event
that could have reasonably been foreseen and avoided, or planned for,
and could not have been avoided by better operation and maintenance
practices;
    3. Repairs were made as expeditiously as possible when the
applicable emission limitations were being exceeded.
    4. The amount and duration of the excess emissions (including any
bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent practicable during periods
of such emissions;
    5. All reasonably possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality;
    6. All emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation (if at
all possible);
    7. The owner or operator's actions during the period of excess
emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs or other relevant evidence;
    8. The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
    9. At all times, the facility was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
    10. During the period of excess emissions, there were no
exceedances of the relevant ambient air quality standards that could be
attributed to the emitting source.
    Per section II.E.3 of the Common Provisions Regulation, the
affirmative defense is not available to claims for injunctive relief.
Also, per section II.E.4 of the Common Provisions Regulation, the
affirmative defense provision does not apply to failures to meet
federally promulgated performance standards or emission limits, such as
New Source Performance Standards or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. It also does not apply to SIP limits or
permit limits that have been set taking into account potential
emissions during malfunctions, such as certain limits with 30-day or
longer averaging times, limits that indicate that they apply during
malfunctions, or limits that indicate that they apply at all times
without exception.
    Section II.E.2 of the Common Provisions Regulation provides that an
owner or operator of a facility experiencing excess emissions during a
malfunction must notify the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division
verbally as soon as possible, but no later than noon of the Division's
next working day, and in writing by the end of the source's next
reporting period. The written notification must address the elements of
the affirmative defense.
    Section I.G of the Common Provisions Regulation defines
``malfunction'' as any sudden and unavoidable failure of air pollution
control equipment or process equipment or unintended failure of a
process to operate in a normal or usual manner and indicates that
failures that are primarily caused by poor maintenance, careless
operation, or any other preventable upset condition or preventable
equipment breakdown shall not be considered malfunctions.
    We interpret the affirmative defense as applying in an enforcement
proceeding, and the merits of the defense in a particular case would be
determined by an independent judicial or administrative tribunal.
Accordingly, the State's decision in a particular case that an
enforcement action was not warranted, or that an owner or operator had
proved the elements of the affirmative defense, would not bar an EPA or
citizen enforcement action and would not bind a judicial or
administrative tribunal. The rule that we are approving preserves the
right of the State, EPA, and citizens to independently exercise
enforcement discretion.
    The provisions of sections I.G and II.E will provide sources with
appropriate incentives to comply with their emissions limitations and
help ensure protection of the NAAQS and increments and compliance with
other Act requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It is our understanding that the State intended to include
with this submittal a minor revision to AQCC Regulation No. 1,
section IV.G.5, to conform its provisions to the affirmative defense
provisions in the Common Provisions Regulation. That provision
reads, ``Compliance with the reporting requirements of this Section
IV.G. shall not relieve the owner or operator of the reporting
requirements of Section II.E of the Common Provisions Regulation
concerning upset conditions and breakdowns.'' The State intended to
change the words ``upset conditions and breakdowns'' to
``malfunctions.'' We have been told that this revision was
inadvertently overlooked, but that it will be made this year. This
omission does not affect the approvability of sections I.G and II.E
of the Common Provisions Regulation. And, even though we have not
received and approved the correction to section IV.G.5 of Regulation
No. 1, we nonetheless believe it is reasonable to interpret section
IV.G.5 of Regulation No.1 as cross-referencing the reporting
requirements for malfunctions under section II.E of the Common
Provisions Regulation, which we are approving today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the CAA

    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states that a SIP revision
cannot be approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
toward attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of
the Act. The Colorado SIP revision that is the subject of this document
does not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable
requirement of the Act. The August 1, 2007 submittal removes a
provision from the Colorado SIP that provided an outright exemption
from emission limits during upsets and replaces it with a provision
that establishes an affirmative defense, to civil penalties only, for
excess emissions during malfunctions. The affirmative defense does not
apply to claims for injunctive relief, and the elements of the
affirmative defense are rigorous and well-defined. The need to meet
these elements will provide sources with significant incentives to
minimize their emissions, comply with their emission limits, and
protect the NAAQS and increments. Therefore, section 110(l)
requirements are satisfied.

V. Final Action

    For the reasons expressed above, we are approving sections I.G and
II.E of the Common Provisions Regulation submitted on August 1, 2007.
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal
Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments
are filed. This rule will be effective October 6, 2008 without further
notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by September 8,
2008. If the EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule
will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if
EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of
this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 6, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 12, 2008.
Carol Rushin,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart G--Colorado

0
2. Section 52.320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(113) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.320  Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *
    (113) On August 1, 2007, the State of Colorado submitted revisions
to Colorado's Common Provisions Regulation, 5 CCR 1001-2, that made
changes and additions to Section I, ``Definitions, Statement of Intent,
and General Provisions Applicable to All Emission Control Regulations
Adopted by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission,'' and Section
II, ``General.''
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Common Provisions Regulation, 5 CCR 1001-2, Section I.G,
``Definitions,'' effective on March 4, 2007.
    (1) The submittal revises Section I.G by removing the definition of
``upset conditions'' and replacing it with the definition of
``malfunction.''
    (B) Common Provisions Regulation, 5 CCR 1001-2, Section II.E,
``Affirmative Defense Provision for Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions,'' effective on March 4, 2007.
    (2) The submittal revises Section II.E by removing language which
provided an exemption for excess emissions during upset conditions and
breakdowns and replacing it with an affirmative defense provision for
source owners and operators for excess emissions during malfunctions.

[FR Doc. E8-16268 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P