    	6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2003-0196; FRL-            ]

RIN:2060-AK73

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Stationary Combustion Turbines

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:	On August 29, 2003, EPA promulgated a final National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion
turbines, which will be codified at 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY.  As
part of that standard, EPA established eight subcategories of stationary
combustion turbines.  Elsewhere in today’s FEDERAL REGISTER, EPA is
publishing a proposed rule to delete four of these subcategories from
the source category list required by section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA).  EPA has made an initial determination that these
subcategories satisfy the criteria for deletion from the source category
list established by CAA section 112(c)(9)(B).

In this companion action, EPA is proposing to stay the effectiveness of
the combustion turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix
gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories,
which are the two principal subcategories we are proposing to delist.
This action is necessary to avoid wasteful and unwarranted expenditures
on installation of emission controls which will not be required if these
subcategories are delisted.

DATES:  Comments.  Written comments on the proposed rule must be
received by EPA no later than [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF
THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

Public Hearing.  A public hearing regarding the proposed rule will be
held if requests to speak are received by the EPA on or before [INSERT
DATE 7 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER].  If requested, a public hearing will be held on [INSERT DATE
14 DAYS FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES:  Comments.  Comments may be submitted electronically, by
mail, or through hand delivery/courier.  Electronic comments may be
submitted on-line at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/.  Written comments sent
by U.S. mail should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention
Docket Number OAR-2003-0196, Room B108, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.  Written comments delivered in person
or by courier (e.g., FedEx, Airborne, and UPS) should be submitted (in
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2003-0196, Room
B102, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
The EPA requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person
listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Hearing.  If a public hearing is requested by [INSERT DATE 7 DAYS
FROM PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the
public hearing will be held in our EPA Office of Administration
Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC on [INSERT DATE 14 DAYS FROM
PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER].  Persons
interested in presenting oral testimony should contact Ms. Kelly A.
Rimer, Risk and Exposure Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division
(C404-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.  Persons interested in attending the
public hearing should also contact Ms. Rimer to verify the time of the
hearing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Ms. Kelly A. Rimer, Risk and Exposure
Assessment Group, Emission Standards Division (C404-01), U.S. EPA,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>,
electronic mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Regulated Entities.  Categories and entities
potentially regulated by this action include:

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

  Category      SIC   NAICS          Examples of

                                  regulated entities

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

Any industry	4911  2211	Electric power generation, using a
transmission, or          stationary				  distribution

combustion	4922  486210	Natural gas transmission

turbine as	1311	 211111	Crude petroleum and natural defined   				  gas
production

in the		1321  211112	Natural gas liquids producers

regulation.	4931	 221		Electric and other services

  combined

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you
should examine the applicability criteria in §63.6085 of the final
rule.  If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Docket.  The EPA has established an official public docket for this
action under Docket ID Number OAR-2003-0196.  The official public docket
is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at
the EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-108, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004.  The Docket Center is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Electronic Access.  An electronic version of the public docket is
available through EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system,
EPA Dockets.  You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically.  Once in the system, select "search"
and key in the appropriate docket identification number.

Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA dockets.
Information claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not
included in the official public docket, will not be available for public
viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket.  The EPA’s policy is that
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official
public docket.  Although not all docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA’s policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will
be made available for public viewing in EPA’s electronic public docket
as EPA receives them and without change unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.  When EPA identifies a comment containing
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in
the version of the comment that is placed in EPA’s electronic public
docket.  The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material,
will be available in the public docket.

Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered
to the docket will be transferred to EPA’s electronic public docket.
Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be
scanned and placed in EPA’s electronic public docket.  Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA’s electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

Comments.  You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier.  To ensure proper receipt
by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the
subject line on the first page of your comment.  Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period.  Comments
submitted after the close of the comment period will be marked
“late”.  The EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

Electronically.  If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed
below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and
an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your
comment.  Also include this contact information on the outside of any
disk or CD ROM you submit and in any cover letter accompanying the disk
or CD ROM.  This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of
the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on
the substance of your comment.  The EPA’s policy is that EPA will not
edit your comment and any identifying or contact information provided in
the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is
placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA’s
electronic public docket.  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.

Your use of EPA’s electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments.  Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.  Once in the system, select
“search” and key in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  The system is an
“anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.

Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  In
contrast to EPA’s electronic public docket, EPA’s e-mail system is
not an “anonymous access” system.  If you send an e-mail comment
directly to the docket without going through EPA’s electronic public
docket, EPA’s e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail
address.  E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA’s
e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA’s electronic public
docket.

You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing
address identified in this document.   These electronic submissions will
be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format.  Avoid the use of
special characters and any form of encryption.

By Mail.  Send your comments (in duplicate, if possible) to:  EPA Docket
Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West, (MD-6102T), Room B-108, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.

By Hand Delivery or Courier.  Deliver your comments (in duplicate, if
possible) to:  EPA Docket Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.  Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket
Center’s normal hours of operation.

By Facsimile.  Fax your comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Docket ID No.
OAR-2003-0196.

CBI.  Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI through
EPA’s electronic public docket or by e-mail.  Send or deliver
information identified as CBI only to the following address: Kelly
Rimer, c/o Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02),
U.S. EPA, 109 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0196.  You may claim information that
you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information
as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI).  Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.

Worldwide Web (WWW).  In addition to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today’s proposed rule will also be available on the
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN).  Following the
Administrator’s signature, a copy of the proposed rule will be placed
on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.  The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control.  If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN
HELP line at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicable Law  Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(V), the Administrator
has determined that it is appropriate to conduct this rulemaking
according to the procedures established by CAA section 307(d).

I. Description of the Proposed Action

Elsewhere in today’s issue of the FEDERAL REGISTER,  EPA is proposing
a rule to amend the list of categories of sources that was developed
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1).  EPA is proposing to delete four
subcategories from the Combustion Turbine Source Category.  A final MACT
standard creating these subcategories was promulgated on August 29,
2003.  This standard will be published soon and will be codified at 40
CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY.  These subcategories are (1) lean premix
gas-fired stationary combustion turbines as defined in 40 CFR §63.6175
(also referred to herein as “lean premix gas-fired turbines”), (2)
diffusion flame gas-fired stationary combustion turbines as defined in
40 CFR §63.6175 (also referred to herein as “diffusion flame
gas-fired turbines”), (3) emergency stationary combustion turbines as
defined in 40 CFR §63.6175, and 4) stationary combustion turbines
located on the North Slope of Alaska, as defined in 40 CFR §63.6175.

This proposed rule to amend the source category list  is being issued in
part to respond to a petition submitted by the Gas Turbine Association
(GTA) and in part upon the Administrator’s own motion.  Petitions to
remove a source category from the source category list are permitted
under section 112(c)(9) of the CAA.  The proposed rule to delete these
four subcategories is based on an initial determination by EPA that
these subcategories satisfy the substantive criteria for deletion set
forth in CAA section 112(c)(9)(B).  The proposed rule to delete these
subcategories that appears elsewhere in today’s FEDERAL REGISTER
contains a detailed description of the technical basis for this initial
determination.

Although EPA is proposing to delete from the source category list four
subcategories established by the final MACT standard for stationary
combustion turbines, CAA section 112(d)(10) provides that the standard
for those subcategories will take effect upon publication of the
standard.  All turbines in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and the
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories which were constructed
or reconstructed after January 14, 2003, will then be required to comply
immediately with the emission standard for new sources.  This may cause
some sources in these two subcategories to make immediate expenditures
on installation and testing of emission controls, even though such
controls will not be required if we adopt a final rule to delete these
subcategories.  In view of our initial determination that the statutory
criteria for delisting have been met for all sources in these
subcategories, we consider it inappropriate and contrary to statutory
intent to mandate such expenditures until after a final determination
has been made whether or not these subcategories should be delisted.
Such expenditures would be wasteful and unwarranted if we take final
action to delist these subcategories.  Moreover, if we take final action
to delist these subcategories, sources constructed or reconstructed
while the rulemaking to delist is pending would bear a regulatory burden
not placed on identical sources constructed or reconstructed thereafter.
 Accordingly, we are proposing this rule to stay the effectiveness of
the emission standard for new sources for the lean premix gas-fired
turbines and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories during the
pendency of the rulemaking to delete these subcategories.

We are mindful that there would be no need to stay the effectiveness of
the standard for new sources in these two subcategories if a rulemaking
to delist the affected sources had been completed before promulgation of
the final MACT standard for combustion turbines.  However, we note that
the GTA petition was not submitted until quite late in the regulatory
process.  Moreover, we generally do not make a definite determination
concerning the characteristics of subcategories until promulgation of a
final MACT standard.

In these circumstances, we do not believe it would be fair to make
certain affected sources bear the burden of a delay in our determination
that a subcategory meets the statutory criteria for delisting.

This proposed stay is consistent with the precedents we have
established in similar circumstances in the past.  In 1991, we issued a
final rule staying the effectiveness of the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for radionuclides, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart
I, for commercial nuclear power reactors during the pendency of another
rulemaking to rescind the standard for these facilities (56 FR, 37158
August 5, 1991).  The rescission was authorized by section 112(d)(9) of
the CAA (the “Simpson amendment”), which provides that we may
decline to regulate Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensees under
CAA section 112 if the Administrator determines that the regulatory
program established by the NRC for a category or subcategory provides an
ample margin of safety to protect the public health.  We had made an
initial determination that the NRC program for commercial nuclear power
reactors met this test, and we reasoned that “it would frustrate the
evident purpose of Section 112(d)(9) if EPA were to permit Subpart I to
take effect for this subcategory during the pendency of the rulemaking
on rescission” (56 FR 37159).  This final rule was not challenged.

In 1995, we acted to provide another type of interim relief during a
delisting rulemaking.  We suspended the listing of caprolactam, during a
rulemaking to delete  caprolactam from the list of hazardous air
pollutants established by CAA section 112(b)(1), for purposes of
determining the applicability of Title V permitting requirements (60 FR
081, September 18, 1995).  We based that action on our determination
that “retention, during the rulemaking to delist caprolactam, of
permit application requirements which will no longer exist after the
delisting process has been completed would result in unnecessary private
and public expenditures on preparation, submission, and processing of
such applications, and would yield no environmental benefits” (60 FR
084-85).  This interim relief also was not challenged.

We are proposing to stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
emission standard for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines
and the diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories, but only
during the pendency of the rulemaking to delist these subcategories.  It
is not our intention by staying the effectiveness of the standard to
change the definition of new sources within these subcategories, or to
alter the status of any individual source.  If these subcategories are
not ultimately delisted, the stay will be lifted, and all sources in
these subcategories constructed or reconstructed after January 14, 2003
will then be subject to the standard.  These sources will then be given
the same time to make the requisite demonstration of compliance they
would have had if there had been no stay.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A.  Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must
determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and
therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and
the requirements of the Executive Order.  The Executive Order defines
“significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:

(1)  Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adverse affect in a material way the economy, a sector to the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or state, local or tribal governments or communities;

(2)  create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;

(3)  materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user
fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients
thereof; or

(4)  raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates,
the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the
Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined
that the proposed action does not constitute a “significant regulatory
action” and is, therefore, not subject to OMB review.

B.  Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The
proposed action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories until a conclusion is
reached regarding deletion and therefore eliminate the need for
information collection toward regulatory compliance under the CAA.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  An Agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations are
listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

C.  Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small business, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.  For the purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small entities, small entity is defined
as:  (1) a small business that meets the definitions for small business
based on the Small Business Association (SBA) size standards which, for
this proposed action, can include manufacturing (NAICS 3999-03) and air
transportation (NAICS 4522-98 and 4512-98) operations that employ less
1,000 people and engineering services (NAICS 8711-98) operations that
earn less than $20 million annually; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impact of today’s proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the primary
purpose of the regulatory flexibility analysis is to identify and
address regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.”  (5 U.S.C.
603 and 604).  Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if
the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive
economic effect on all of the small entities subject to the rule.  The
proposed rule will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines
NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and
diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories.  This will stay the
requirements to apply controls and will also stay associated operating,
monitoring and reporting requirements.  These burdens will be
permanently lifted if EPA ultimately removes the four source categories
from the stationary combustion turbine source category, and temporarily
lifted if EPA does not ultimately delist the subcategories.  We have,
therefore, concluded that today’s proposed rule will relieve
regulatory burden for all small entities.  We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D.  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law
1044, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector.  Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year.  Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.  The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.  Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.  Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan.  The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

Today’s proposed rule contains no Federal mandates for State, local,
or tribal governments or the private sector.  The proposed rule imposes
no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.  In any event, EPA has determined that the proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of
$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.  Thus, today’s
proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.

E.  Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.”  “Policies that have federalism
implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.”

Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.  The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.

Today’s action proposes to stay the effectiveness of the combustion
turbines NESHAP for new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines
and diffusion flame gas-fired turbines subcategories.  It does not
impose any additional requirements on the States and does not affect the
balance of power between the States and the Federal government.  Thus,
the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the
proposed rule.

F.  Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  The proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  The proposed
action will stay the effectiveness of the combustion turbines NESHAP for
new sources in the lean premix gas-fired turbines and diffusion flame
gas-fired turbines subcategories.  Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to the proposed rule.

G.  Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule
that:  (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children.  If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.  The proposed rule is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as
defined in Executive Order 12866, and because this action is not based
on health or safety risks.  Thus, Executive Order 13045 does not apply
to this rule.

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

Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare  and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain actions
identified as “significant energy actions.”  The proposed rule is
not a “significant energy action” because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.

I.  National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 112(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) 915 U.S.C. 272
note), directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.  Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards
(e.g., material specifications, test method, sampling and analytical
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
one or more voluntary consensus standards bodies.  Examples of
organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies
include the American society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE).  The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations when an agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.  The proposed rule does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

______________________

Dated:

______________________

Administrator.

 PAGE  1

 PAGE  27


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1450-1451]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-110]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-22727;
FMCSA-2007-29019]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

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

DATES: This decision is effective February 9, 2010. Comments must be
received on or before February 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2005-22194;
FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2007-29019, using any of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 6 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 6 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

James S. Ayers
Vernon J. Dohrn
Mark A. Massengill
Douglas J. Mauton
Dennis L. Maxcy
Dean B. Ponte

    These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and
(b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is otherwise
physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the
medical examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (3)
that each individual provides a copy of the annual medical
certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retain a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 6 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 69434; 71 FR 6825; 73 FR
6246; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632; 72 FR 58362;
72 FR 67344). Each of these 6 applicants has requested renewal of the
exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a
review of each record of safety while driving with the respective
vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant
continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide
an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to
drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that
extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two
years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing
without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by February 10, 2010.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 6 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each
case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to
its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That
information is available by consulting the above cited Federal Register
publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 22, 2009.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-203 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Mike Mattheisen/DC/USEPA/US

02/28/2008 08:54 AM

	To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	cc

	Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	Subject

	Fw: Final rule on lead/lead components and children's product
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487]

Ms. Owen, there is no exemption in the rule or regulations for
components that are "inaccessible" to children.  "consumer use" and
"intended for use by children" are defined in 40 CFR 710.43.

In addition, below are answers that EPA recently gave to questions
submitted by another correspondent that provide some additional
clarification and guidance.

1. Persons who must submit include importers of lead and lead compounds
that are in, or part of, articles that are consumer products intended
for use by children.  The phrase “intended for use by children” is
defined in 40 CFR 710.43.

2. Health and safety studies concerning the lead and lead compounds in
articles that are consumer products intended for use by children are
among those studies that must be submitted. The types of studies that
are reportable are described at 40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(i).  The phrase
“intended for use by children” is defined in 40 CFR 710.43

3. As a general matter, all known health and safety studies of the types
described at 40 CFR 716.21(a)(8)(i) must be reported, regardless of
their date.  However, analyzed aggregations of monitoring data are not
subject to reporting under this rule if they were based on monitoring
data acquired more than 5 years before a substance was listed under 40
CFR 716.120. 40 CFR 716.20(a)(7).  In addition, 40 CFR 716.25 provides
that persons subject to this rule are not required to search their
records for reportable information dated before January 1, 1977, unless
specifically required to do so in a rule.  Health and safety studies
dated before January 1, 1977, must nevertheless be reported if they are
known.

4. The rule only requires the reporting of unpublished health and safety
studies (defined in 40 CFR 716.3) that relate to any measurable lead
content in, or that assess children’s exposure (including
bioavailability) to lead from, consumer products intended for use by
children (except for children’s metal jewelry as described by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission in 72 FR 920 (Jan. 9, 2007)).  That
is, the amendment at 716.21(a)(8) is intended to limit reporting to only
two subsets of all possible unpublished health and safety studies.
Whether or not “product content” data constituted a health and
safety study would depend on the extent to which the information met the
considerations in 716.3.  For example, a simple, isolated list of
ingredients or an isolated analysis of product content would not likely
be considered a health and safety study, whereas an analysis of product
ingredients coupled with an evaluation of hazard or human or
environmental exposure or risks would likely be considered a health and
safety study.  Regulations governing studies to be reported and studies
not subject to reporting are found at 40 CFR 716.10 and 40 CFR 716.20,
respectively.

Mike Mattheisen

Acting Branch Chief

Chemical Information and Testing Branch

Chemical Control Division

US EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

202-564-3077

----- Forwarded by Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US on 02/19/2008 11:53 AM -----

"Owen, Sarah"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
02/19/2008 10:51 AM

	To

	Joseph Nash/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	cc

	"Kohorst, Mark"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
	Subject

	Final rule on lead/lead components and children's product
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0487]

Mr. Nash,

Thank you for taking my phone call this morning. Per our conversation, I
am seeking guidance on the applicability of the final rule to
manufacturers of products which may be components of children’s
products, but in most cases are inaccessible.

For example, would the rule/reporting requirements apply to
manufacturers of wire and cable (containing lead), which may be included
in toys or other children’s products, but which would not be directly
accessible to the child using such product? How would a “children’s
product” be defined – could it include something such as a desk lamp
which, if it used an incandescent light bulb, would contain lead solder?

Generally, the manufacturers the National Electrical Manufacturers
Association (NEMA) represents do not manufacture products intended
specifically for children, but it is unclear reading the rule whether
manufacturers of products such as those listed above would get drawn
into the rule’s requirements. Any clarification you can provide would
be most helpful.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this.

Sarah

Sarah A. Owen

Manager, Government Relations

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1752

Rosslyn, VA 22209

(703) 841-3245

www.nema.org


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 52440]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14634-001]

New England Hydropower Company, LLC; Notice of Application
Tendered for Filing With the Commission and Soliciting Additional Study
Requests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Exemption from Licensing.
    b. Project No.: 14634-001.
    c. Date Filed: October 1, 2018.
    d. Applicant: New England Hydropower Company, LLC (NEHC).
    e. Name of Project: Ashton Dam Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Blackstone River, near the Towns of Cumberland
and Lincoln, Providence County, Rhode Island. No federal or tribal
lands would be occupied by project works or located within the project
boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, 16 U.S.C. 2705, 2708 (2012), amended by the Hydropower Regulatory
Efficiency Act of 2013, Public Law 113-23, 127 Stat. 493 (2013).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Michael C. Kerr, 100 Cummings Center,
Suite 451C, Beverly, MA 01915; phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: John Ramer, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating Agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item (l) below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC 61,076
(2001).
    k. Pursuant to section 4.32(b)(7) of the Commission's regulations,
if any resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person believes that an
additional scientific study should be conducted in order to form an
adequate factual basis for a complete analysis of the application on
its merit, the resource agency, Indian Tribe, or person must file a
request for a study with the Commission not later than 60 days from the
date of filing of the application, and serve a copy of the request on
the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing additional study requests and requests for
cooperating agency status: December 10, 2018.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency status
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy
to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14634-001.
    m. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    n. The proposed Ashton Dam Hydroelectric Project would consist of:
(1) An existing concrete gravity dam that includes: (a) An
approximately 193-foot-long western spillway section; (b) an
approximately 57-foot-long middle spillway section with a crest gate
proposed to be repaired; and (c) a proposed new 58-foot-long eastern
section with three proposed 12-foot-wide, 8.8-foot-high steel sluice
gates; (2) an existing 25-acre impoundment with a normal storage
capacity of 200 acre-feet at an operating elevation of approximately
73.6 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988; (3) a new 58-foot-wide
intake canal; (4) a 39-foot-wide, 11-foot-high steel trashrack with 9-
inch clear bar spacing; (5) a new 30-foot-long, 49-foot-wide, 14-foot-
high concrete penstock; (6) a new 53-foot-long, 24-foot-wide, 18-foot-
high concrete powerhouse containing three new 20.4-foot-long, 13.5-
foot-diameter Archimedes Screw turbine-generator units, with a total
installed capacity of 507 kilowatts, each contained in a new 15-foot-
wide steel trough; (7) a new 120-foot-long tailrace; (8) a new step-up
transformer and 800-foot-long above-ground transmission line connecting
the project to the distribution system owned by Narragansett Electric
Company; (9) a new access road; and (10) appurtenant facilities.
    NEHC proposes to operate the project in a run-of-river mode with an
estimated annual energy production of approximately 2,130 megawatt-
hours.
    o. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    p. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate (e.g., if there are no deficiencies and/or
scoping is waived, the schedule would be shortened).

Issue Deficiency/AIR Letter...............  January 2019
Issue Notice of Acceptance/Ready for        April 2019
 Environmental Analysis.
Issue Notice of the Availability of         August 2019
 Environmental Assessment.

    Dated: October 11, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-22606 Filed 10-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 16409]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6769]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Preliminary Permit Drawing

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII...  Project No. 13743-000.
FFP Missouri 16, LLC.............  Project No. 13753-000.
Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC.......  Project No. 13769-000.
Three Rivers Hydro LLC...........  Project No. 13785-000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has received four preliminary permit applications
deemed filed on May 18, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.,\1\ for proposed projects to
be located at the Army Corps of Engineers' Opekiska Lock and Dam on the
Monongahela River, in Monongahela County, West Virginia. The
applications were filed by Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII for Project
No. 13743, FFP Missouri 16, LLC, for Project No. 13753, Solia 7
Hydroelectric, LLC, for Project No. 13769 and Three Rivers Hydro LLC
for Project No. 13785.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any
document received after regular business hours is considered filed
at 8:30 a.m. on the next regular business day. 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(2)
(2010).
    \2\ Opekiska Hydro, LLC, also filed a permit application to
study the same site for Project No. 13791, which is deemed filed on
May 19, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, at 10 a.m. (eastern time), the Secretary of the
Commission, or her designee, will conduct a random drawing to determine
the filing priority of the applicants identified in this notice. The
Commission will select among competing permit applications as provided
in section 4.37 of its regulations.\3\ The priority established by this
drawing will be used to determine which applicant, among those with
identical filing times, will be considered to have the first-filed
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 4.37 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The drawing is open to the public and will be held in room 2C, the
Commission Meeting Room, located at 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC
20426. A subsequent notice will be issued by the Secretary announcing
the results of the drawing.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6769 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 144)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42598-42602]
[DOCID:fr27jy06-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1990-0011; FRL-8202-8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of the Arctic Surplus Site from
the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, is
publishing a direct final notice of deletion of the Arctic Surplus Site
(Site), located in Fairbanks, Alaska, 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 appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which is the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Alaska, through the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC) because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed and,
therefore, further remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is not
appropriate.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective September 25, 2006
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 28, 2006. If adverse
comments 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-1990-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instruction

for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

     Mail: Jacques L. Gusmano, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Alaska Operations Office,
222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage, Alaska 99513.
     Hand Delivery: 222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage,
Alaska 99513. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SF-1990-
0011. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or 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 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 in the Deletion Docket Bibliography. 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. Deletion Docket materials are available
electronically or in hard copy at the EPA's Region 10 Superfund Records
Center, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 and the Defense
Reutilization & Marketing Office (Administrative Records) Building
5001, Mile Badger Road, Fairbanks, AK 99703 at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The
Region 10 Superfund Records Center is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. by
appointment, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
Superfund Records Center telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacques L. Gusmano, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Alaska
Operations Office, 222 West 7th Avenue, Suite 19, Anchorage, Alaska
99513, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 10 is publishing this direct final notice of deletion of
the Arctic Surplus Site, which is located in Fairbanks, Alaska from the
NPL.
    The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk
to public health or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list
of those sites. As described in 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted
from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions if conditions at a
deleted site warrant such action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication of a notice of
intent to delete. This action will be effective September 25, 2006
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 28, 2006 on this
document. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period for this document, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal
of this direct final 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 Arctic Surplus Salvage 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

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted
from, or recategorized on the NPL, where no further response is
appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL,
EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been
implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    (iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the site poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
remedial measures are not appropriate.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42
U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a subsequent review of the site will be
conducted at least every five years after the initiation of the
remedial action at the deleted site to ensure that the site remains
protective of public health and the environment. If new information
becomes available which indicates a need for further action, EPA may
initiate additional remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant
release from a deleted site from the NPL, the site may be restored to
the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.
    In the case of this site, the selected remedy is protective of
human health and the environment; however, because the remedy leaves
waste on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, a review of the selected remedy will be
conducted at least every five years from initiation of the remedial
action.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of
Arctic Surplus:
    (1) EPA Region 10 issued a Record of Decision (ROD) and an
Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) which documented the
remedial action goals.
    (2) The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) issued a Remedial Action
Report and a Final Closeout Report indicating remedial activities
completed was issued by EPA.
    (3) The State of Alaska has concurred with the proposed deletion
decision.

    (4) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final notice
of deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel notice of
intent to delete published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of
the Federal Register is being published in the Fairbanks Daily News-
Miner and is being distributed to appropriate Federal, State, and local
government officials and other interested parties; the newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the notice of
intent to delete the Site from the NPL.
    (5) All relevant documents have been compiled in the site deletion
docket and made available in the local site information repositories.
If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment
period on this document, EPA will publish a timely notice of withdrawal
of this direct final notice of deletion before its effective date. 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.
    Deletion of the Site from the NPL does not in itself, create, alter
or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed
primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management.
As mentioned in Section II of this document, Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the
NCP states that the deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude
eligibility for future response actions, should future conditions
warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

    The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the
proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Arctic Surplus Site, which consists of several land parcels,
occupies 24.5 acres and is located on the northeast corner of Badger
Road and the Old Richardson Highway, approximately six miles southeast
of Fairbanks, Alaska. The western portion of the site was owned by the
Department of Defense (DOD) and, from 1944 to 1956, a landfill used by
the military was located on the parcel. Following its sale by DOD in
1959, the entire site was used as a salvage yard, resulting in the
accumulation of a large amount of both salvageable and non-salvageable
materials. The salvage yard activities that have impacted the site
include:

0
 Lead battery recycling; batteries were stored and then cracked to
collect lead for recycling;
0
 Draining oil from transformers, some of which contained
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs);
0
 Burning spent transformer oils to fuel an incinerator used to reclaim
copper from transformer coils and lead from batteries;
0
 Salvaging mechanized equipment, which may have caused fluids to leak;
0
 Accumulating spent ordnance and explosives-related scrap; and,
0
 Storing oils, chemicals, containerized gases, and other hazardous
materials improperly.
    Arctic Surplus was the subject of a Preliminary Assessment Report
under the CERCLA dated June 29, 1987, and a Site Inspection in August/
September 1988. The Site was proposed for the NPL on October 26, 1989,
and was listed on August 30, 1990.
    Since its identification as a CERCLA site, numerous investigations
and removal actions have been performed to characterize the Site and
address potential Site risks. Removal actions were completed during
1989, 1990, and 1991 by EPA and by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
for DOD. During 1989, the site was fenced, approximately 22,000 pounds
of asbestos were removed, and approximately 75 gallons of the
pesticide, chlordane, were stabilized and removed. During 1990, more
extensive removal actions included the dismantling of an incinerator
and removal and offsite disposal of associated ash and contaminated
soil, and the removal and offsite disposal of approximately 13 cubic
yards of PCB-contaminated soil, 315 cubic yards of lead-contaminated
soil from ``battery-cracking,'' and approximately 160 cubic yards of
chlordane-contaminated soil. The removal actions also included bulking
and removal of containerized waste, removal of battery casings,
draining and disposal of transformer oils, and capping of specific
areas of contaminated soil. In 1991, another removal action was
completed to investigate alleged buried hazardous wastes and delineate
the extent of localized contamination. To facilitate the investigation,
approximately 300 non-PCB transformers were moved and staged for
removal.
    The Remedial Investigation (RI) began in 1992 and was completed in
1994. In the RI, several potential source areas were identified
including on the western half of the Site:
0
 Battery cracking areas;
0
 Buried materials, including the old military landfill;
0
 Incinerator area; and
0
 Transformer processing areas.
    Additional potential source areas in other parts of the site were
drum storage areas, and salvage and debris piles scattered all around
the property. The two primary contaminants of concern (COCs) identified
were lead and PCBs. Lead was identified at concentrations greater than
500 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in surface soils over much of the
western portion of the Site. It was also found at elevated
concentrations in a limited number of samples of off-property soils,
presumably transported by traffic, filling, and grading, or particulate
transport from wind. PCB transformer oils were found in old
transformers, drums, and oil-stained soils in several areas of the
Site. During the 1990 removal actions, free product in containers was
removed and heavily contaminated soils were excavated and removed from
the Site. Subsequent analyses of the surface soil throughout much of
the western part of the Site detected elevated concentrations of PCBs
in surface soils, locally in excess of 100 mg/kg. Groundwater quality
was studied in the RI as a potential contaminant pathway. One on-site
monitoring well contained trichloroethylene (TCE) ranging from 6-14 ug/
l (drinking water standard for TCE, 5 ug/l); this on-site well was
located in the center of the property. No wells down gradient of this
well, or any area residential wells had TCE concentrations above MCLs.

Selected Remedy

    On September 28, 1995, the Regional Administrator signed a Record
of Decision (ROD) selecting the following remedy:
0
 Relocation and sorting of salvage material and debris, which must be
moved to provide access to the contaminated soil;
0
 Excavation and stockpiling of soil exceeding cleanup standards for
treatment or disposal;
0
 Onsite treatment of soil exceeding 50 mg/kg PCBs by solvent
extraction;
0
 Onsite treatment of soil exceeding the lead industrial cleanup
standard of 1,000 mg/kg by stabilization/solidification.
0
 Offsite disposal of soil exceeding hot spot concentrations for
pesticides of 21 mg/kg 4,4'-DDD, 15 mg/kg 4,4'-DDT, and 0.44 ug/kg
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence for dioxin/furans;
0
 Consolidation of treated soils into a containment area over the old
closed military landfill;
0
 Capping of the containment area with a steep-sided cap to prevent
future use; and

0
 Implementation of institutional controls including long-term
groundwater monitoring, and operation and maintenance of fences and the
cap; restrictions to prevent use of groundwater, maintain industrial
use, and prevent any unauthorized access or use of the capped area.
    The design process to implement the ROD began in June 2002 with a
reevaluation of the remedy selection. The design team consisted of
representatives from EPA, ADEC, DLA, and DLA's consultants. The purpose
of the reevaluation was to assess the current condition of the site
relative to the ROD's goals and objectives, and to identify any
improvements to the remediation process that could be implemented. The
proposed treatment and cap design changes were evaluated by EPA and an
Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD), signed on June 17, 2003,
documented the changes to the original ROD. The changes to the ROD
included in the ESD are:
0
 Treatment of soil with PCB concentration between 10 and 50 mg/kg by
solidification/stabilization and placement of the treated soil in the
onsite containment area,
0
 Offsite disposal of soil with PCBs greater than 50 mg/kg,
0
 Capping the new waste containment area with a geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL) instead of compacted silt,
0
 Flattening the cap profile to allow for reuse of the land, and
0
 Develop permanent institutional controls that will be attached to the
property and transfer with the land.

Response Actions

    EPA was negotiating an Agreement on Consent (AOC) with DOD when the
remedial actions were begun. The final AOC was signed on December 11,
2003. The other PRPs did not participate in the cleanup actions. The
cleanup activities that were conducted had two major objectives; to
implement the ROD including the ESD changes; and to remove or
demilitarize any ordnance or potentially explosive items. A Remedial
Action Work Plan for the ROD which specified soil cleanup activities
was issued in May 2003. Implementation of the soil remedy began in June
2003. The CERCLA remedial actions included:
0
 Relocating, sorting, and decontamination of salvage material,
ancillary scrap (transformers, compressed gas cylinders, etc.), and
debris to access the contaminated soil beneath;
0
 Excavation and stockpiling of contaminated soils with concentrations
greater than 1,000 mg/kg lead or 10 mg/kg PCBs and off-property soils
with concentrations greater than 400 mg/kg lead and/or 1 mg/kg PCBs;
0
 Excavation and segregation of soil with concentrations of PCBs greater
than 50 mg/kg; dioxin concentrations greater than 0.44 ug/kg; DDD
concentrations greater than 21 mg/kg; and/or DDT concentrations greater
than 15 mg/kg;
0
 Shipment of dioxin-, DDT-, and DDD-contaminated soil and soil with
greater than 50 mg/kg PCBs offsite for disposal;
0
 Solidification/stabilization of contaminated soil containing lead at
concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/kg, and soil with greater than 10
mg/kg but less than 50 mg/kg PCB;
0
 Placement of stabilized soils into a containment area, which also
encompasses the old existing landfill located in the southwestern
section of the site; and
0
 Capping the stabilized soil in the containment area and the existing
landfill with a GCL cap.

Operation and Maintenance

    Pursuant to the Administrative Order of Consent dated December 11,
2003, the long-term groundwater monitoring and the operations and
maintenance (O&M) actions will be performed by DOD for the first five
years, ending in September 2008. There are seven existing onsite
groundwater monitoring wells that will be used for the long-term
monitoring. There are three wells specifically downgradient of the new
containment cell and one upgradient. The three other wells included in
the long-term monitoring are along the northern property boundary.
Provisions are included to extend this commitment as needed to maintain
the site. The current O&M plan includes semi-annual groundwater
monitoring and assessment of cap integrity.

Institutional Controls

    The institutional controls relating to site access and land use
restrictions were not part of the Administrative Order, but were made
part of a State of Alaska action using a document called ``Conservation
Easement,'' recorded on September 21, 2004. This type of enforceable
document was used at Arctic Surplus because there was no Settlement
Document, i.e., consent decree, signed by all of the PRPs, only an
Administrative Order with DOD. The signatories to the Conservation
Easement for Arctic Surplus are the property owners, who have agreed to
the terms of the Conservation Easement. The administration and
enforcement of this document for Arctic Surplus was delegated to ADEC
by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR) by a Management
Right Assignment dated September 29, 2004. This Assignment has been
filed by ADNR for the State of Alaska. This Conservation Easement
document also includes EPA as a partner to ADEC for management and
enforcement. ADEC has the responsibility to implement the Conservation
Easement as an institutional control, and will provide EPA and the PRPs
with a notice of any problems based on any site inspections.

Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances remain at the Site above levels that allow
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure after the completion of the
remedial action. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and as provided in
the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews: OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-
P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, dated June 2001, EPA must
conduct a statutory Five-Year Review. The first Five-Year Review Report
will be completed by December 22, 2008.

Community Involvement

    EPA held nine public meetings, issued 13 fact sheets and published
notices of three public comment periods in the Federal Register and in
local newspapers. The meetings and fact sheets focused on CERCLA-
required comment periods, informational meetings, enforcement actions,
alternative analysis or schedule announcements, and public involvement
sessions. Since completion of remedial actions there have been minimal
public comments.

Applicable Deletion Criteria

    One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may
delete a site from the NPL if ``responsible parties have implemented
all appropriate response actions required.'' EPA, with the concurrence
of the State of Alaska, believe that this criterion for deletion has
been met. There is no significant threat to human health or the
environment and, therefore, no further remedial action is necessary.

State Concurrence

    In a letter dated May 23, 2006, from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (ADEC), ADEC concurs with the proposed
deletion of the Arctic Surplus Site from the NPL.

V. Deletion Action

    The EPA, with concurrence of the State of Alaska, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed, and
that no

further response actions, under CERCLA, other than O&M and five-year
reviews, are necessary. 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 September 25, 2006 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 28, 2006. 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. In this case, 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 substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 18, 2006.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 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--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
for ``Arctic Surplus, Fairbanks, Alaska.''

 [FR Doc. E6-11809 Filed 7-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74841]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-3069-004; ER10-3070-004.
    Applicants: Alcoa Power Marketing LLC, Alcoa Power Generating Inc.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Alcoa Power
Marketing LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/11/2012.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-113-002.
    Applicants: Sunbury Energy, LLC.
    Description: Sunbury Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amended Filing No. 2 to be effective 12/21/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-247-000.
    Applicants: NV Energy, Inc.
    Description: Sierra Pacific Power Company submits Transmission Rate
Case Exhibit No. SPPC-9.2 Depreciation Study and Supporting Testimony
Filed with the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.
    Filed Date: 12/6/12.
    Accession Number: 20121206-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/18/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-542-000.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Company submits tariff
filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: OATT Att M LGIA Rev to be effective 12/12/
2012.
    Filed Date: 12/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-543-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35: 12-11-12 CONE Compliance to be effective
6/1/2012 .
    Filed Date: 12/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-544-000
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2012--12--11--DPC Lufkin SS-
333 to be effective 11/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-545-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: SA 2501 BREC-Vectren IA to
be effective 12/12/2012.
    Filed Date: 12/11/12.
    Accession Number: 20121211-5114
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/2/13.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 11, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30388 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P