MEMORANDUM

FROM:  Keith Barnett, EPA/OAR/OAQPS/SPPD MMG

TO: Portland Cement Administrative Record

RE:  Meeting between the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and OMB

	On November 29 and 30, 2006, the Portland Cement Association met with
EPA staff ( Keith Barnett, and Steve Fruh).  The PCA representatives
included Andy O’Hare, Davis Novello, and Fran Streitman.  The purpose
of the meeting was to discuss EPA’s planned emission limits for
mercury and total hydricarbons for new sources.

The PCA representative expressed concerns about the plannned standards
and reiterated their suggested alterantive presented on November 8,
2006.


Contact Report Date: July 12, 2002 From: Brenda Shine North State Engineering, Inc.

To: MON Project File Subject: Contact Report   Mr. Kent Houser SHEL Manager Air Products Corp P. O. Box 12291 Wichita, KS 67277 ( 316) 522 8181 Summary: On July 12 I contacted Mr. Houser regarding follow up information on methanol containing wastewater streams at the facility. In the Section 114 information request filled out by the facility in June of 1997, four methanolcontaining wastewater streams, W02 through W05 were reported as being generated, managed and treated. I contacted the facility to verify some information regarding this streams. My questions, and Mr. Houser's responses are presented below.

1. Are the processes generating these streams still operating?

Yes, the processes have changed so that the wastewaters generated from the process ( es) has a much lower concentration of methanol in it, at approximately 1% by weight. This water is directly deepwell injected. Regarding the prior process, Wastewater used to be more concentrated 15 to 20 % by weight. This wastewater was hardpiped to steam stripping and the stripper overheads were routed to a flare for destruction.

2. Were any other HAP contained in the wastewater streams?

No.

3. Were the streams hardpiped to treatment? Contact Report Yes, the streams were hardpiped to the stripping operation. The sewers prior to deepwell injection ( post stripper) have some open sources.

4. Are the processes used to generate the wastewaters batch processes? Yes, the processes are batch.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 17, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34082]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0094; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-17]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-7202; Guam, GU

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on March 5, 2019, proposing to establish Restricted Area R-
7202 on the island of Guam, GU. The FAA does not establish restricted
areas for small arms gun ranges.

DATES: The proposed rule establishing Restricted Area R-7202 is
withdrawn as of July 17, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a NPRM in the Federal Register for Docket No.
FAA-2019-0094. (84 FR 7840; March 5, 2019). The NPRM proposed to
establish restricted area R-7202 on the island of Guam, GU.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. Six comments
were received.

Discussion of Comments

    Three comments were in support of the proposal. One commenter
suggested relocating the range to a location where bird and wildlife
have been eradicated due to military expansion, as the proposed
location would disrupt bird and wildlife. One commenter questioned the
altitude of the proposal in relation to the weapons being proposed. One
commenter questioned the United States Marine Corps (USMC) move from
Okinawa due to China's tyrannical influences on Japan.

FAA's Conclusions

    The FAA does not issue restricted areas for small arms gun ranges
within the United States. Issuing a restricted area for small arm gun
ranges in Guam would set a precedent nationwide at military and
countless civilian gun clubs. This proliferation of restricted areas
would result in inefficient management of the National Airspace System
(NAS).
    The USMC purpose and need for the airspace is to provide a safe and
effective area for live-fire training. The FAA allows for live-fire
training at small arm gun ranges in within the United States without a
restricted area. The USMC has numerous live fire ranges without the
segregation that a restricted area provides and can complete their
mission safely and effectively in Guam without one.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the FAA
withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2019
(84 FR 7840), FR Doc. 2019-03931, is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2019.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2019-15121 Filed 7-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48546-48547]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20959]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9 and 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0366; FRL-9983-72]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rules on Certain Chemical Substances;
Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing significant new use rules (SNURs)
promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 145
chemical substances, which were the subjects of premanufacture notices
(PMNs). EPA published these SNURs using direct final rulemaking
procedures, which requires EPA to take certain actions if an adverse
comment is received. EPA received adverse comments regarding the SNURs
identified in this document. Therefore, the Agency is withdrawing the
direct final rule SNURs identified in this document, as required under
the direct final rulemaking procedures.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 83 FR 37702 on August 1,
2018, is withdrawn effective September 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0366, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The list of potentially affected entities is provided in the
Federal Register of August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37702) (FRL-9970-23). If you
have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What direct final SNURs are being withdrawn?

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37702), EPA issued
direct final SNURs for all 145 chemical substances that are identified
in this document. Because the Agency received adverse comments that
relate to each of the 145 chemical substances, EPA is withdrawing the
direct final SNURS issued for these 145 chemical substances. In
addition to the Direct Final SNURs, elsewhere in the same issue of the
Federal Register of August 1, 2018, EPA issued proposed SNURs covering
these 145 chemical substances (83 FR 37455) (FRL-9981-16). EPA will
address all adverse public comments in a subsequent final rule, based
on the proposed rule.

III. Good Cause Finding

    EPA determined that this document is not subject to the 30-day
delay of effective date generally required by the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)) because of the time limitations
for publication in the Federal Register. This document must publish on
or before the effective date of the direct final rule containing the
direct final SNURs being withdrawn.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone
into effect and which contain no new or amended requirements. As such,
the Agency has determined that this action will not have any adverse
impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory and Executive Order
review requirements applicable to the direct final rule were discussed
in the August 1, 2018 Federal Register. Those review requirements do
not apply to this action because it is a withdrawal and does not
contain any new or amended requirements.

V. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the
issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided
by CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public
procedure is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest. As

required by 5 U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief
statement in Unit III.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

    Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR parts 9 and 721 published on
August 1, 2018 (83 FR 37702), are withdrawn effective September 26,
2018.

    Dated: September 11, 2018.
Lynn Vendinello,
Acting Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-20959 Filed 9-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P