[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13113-13120]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5340]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0057, 0058, 0061, 0062, 0064, 0065, 0066, 0068,
0070, 0072, 0074, 0075, 0076, 0077, 0078; FRL-9277-7]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 54

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule proposes to add 15 sites to the General
Superfund section of the NPL. One of the sites included in this
proposed rule, MolyCorp, Inc., was previously proposed in May 2000.
MolyCorp, Inc. is being re-proposed with a revised HRS score that is
based on extensive new sampling data.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before May 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate Docket Number from the table below.

                                      Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Site name                 City/county, state                       Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Ledge Mine.....................  Rogue River--Siskiyou   EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0057.
                                       National Forest, CA.
New Idria Mercury Mine..............  Idria, CA.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0058.
Sandoval Zinc Company...............  Sandoval, IL..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0061.
Gary Development Landfill...........  Gary, IN..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0062.
Sauer Dump..........................  Dundalk, MD...........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0064.
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--Columbus..  Columbus, MS..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0065.
Red Panther Chemical Company........  Clarksdale, MS........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0066.
CTS of Asheville, Inc...............  Asheville, NC.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0068.
Garfield Ground Water Contamination.  Garfield, NJ..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0070.
MolyCorp, Inc.......................  Questa, NM............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0072.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water    New Cassel/Hicksville,  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074.
 Contamination.                        NY.
Astoria Marine Construction Company.  Astoria, OR...........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0075.
North Ridge Estates.................  Klamath Falls, OR.....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0076.
US Finishing/Cone Mills.............  Greenville, SC........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0077.
Alamo Contaminated Ground Water.....  Alamo, TN.............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0078.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.;
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West, Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004.
Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate Docket number
(see table above). 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; that means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public
Comment,'' of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (Mail Code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are sites listed on the NPL?
    E. What happens to sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?
    G. How are sites removed from the NPL?
    H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are
cleaned up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
    J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?
    B. How do I access the documents?
    C. What documents are available for public review at the
headquarters docket?
    D. What documents are available for public review at the
regional dockets?
    E. How do I submit my comments?
    F. What happens to my comments?
    G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?
    H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is
over?
    I. May I view public comments submitted by others?
    J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Re-proposal of MolyCorp, Inc. Site
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866
review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
apply to this proposed rule?
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this proposed rule?

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list
of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and requires
that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other

Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29,
1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for
carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for
preparing a Hazard Ranking System (``HRS'') score and determining
whether the facility is placed on the NPL.

D. How are sites listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR
51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: Ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a
matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the
HRS are eligible for the NPL. (2) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B),
each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed
on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision of CERCLA requires
that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one facility
designated by each State as the greatest danger to public health,
welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State. This
mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any HRS score,
if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to
the release.

    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What happens to sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2), placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL define the boundaries of sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course,
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well
as any other location where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site, properly understood, is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to, nor confined by,
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
    EPA regulations provide that the Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (40 CFR 300.5).
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or
smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the
source(s) and the migration of the contamination. However, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore the
boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it
generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the
contamination ``has come to be located'' before all necessary studies
and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries
of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most
cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release
with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.

G. How are sites removed from the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). This section also provides

that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall
consider whether any of the following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of
remedial measures is not appropriate.

H. May EPA delete portions of sites from the NPL as they are cleaned
up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a policy to delete portions of NPL
sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total
site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have
been cleaned up and made available for productive use.

I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    EPA also has developed an NPL Construction Completion List
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) the site qualifies
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/ccl.htm.

J. What is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure represents important
Superfund accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority
EPA places on considering anticipated future land use as part of our
remedy selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure
applies to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all
cleanup goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other
controls are in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in
carrying out remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human
health and the environment for current and future land uses, in a
manner that allows contaminated properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality. For further information, please go
to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/index.html.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I review the documents relevant to this proposed rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the sites in this proposed rule are contained in public Dockets
located both at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, and in the Regional
offices. These documents are also available by electronic access at
http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in the ADDRESSES section
above).

B. How do I access the documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.; EPA West,
Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a
visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
Ildefonso Acosta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway,
New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4344.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Mail code 9T25, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
Evette Jones, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-7572.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Mailcode 6SFTS, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Mailcode SUPRERNB, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Sabrina Forrest, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 303/312-6484.
Karen Jurist, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU, MP), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, Mailcode SFD-9-1, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-
3219.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mailcode ECL-112, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents. Please note that due to
the difficulty of reproducing oversized maps, oversized maps may be
viewed only in-person; since EPA dockets are not equipped to either
copy and mail out such maps or scan them and send them out
electronically.
    You may use the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those
differences are outlined below.

C. What documents are available for public review at the Headquarters
Docket?

    The Headquarters Docket for this proposed rule contains the
following for the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the information used to compute the
score; information for any sites affected by particular statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation Record.

D. What documents are available for public review at the Regional
Dockets?

    The Regional Dockets for this proposed rule contain all of the

information in the Headquarters Docket plus the actual reference
documents containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA
in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These
reference documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How do I submit my comments?

    Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by
express mail or by postal mail.

F. What happens to my comments?

    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that
EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if,
and when, the site is listed on the NPL.

G. What should I consider when preparing my comments?

    Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (DC Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not address comments unless they
indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what
particular point in EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. May I submit comments after the public comment period is over?

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can guarantee
only that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close of
the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not delaying a
final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration of late
comments.

I. May I view public comments submitted by others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov http://www/epa/goc/edocket as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Once in the
public Dockets system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate
Docket ID number.

J. May I submit comments regarding sites not currently proposed to the
NPL?

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add 15 sites to the
General Superfund section of the NPL. All of the sites in this proposed
rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above
with the exceptions of North Ridge Estates (Klamath Falls, OR), which
is being proposed based on its designation as the state's top priority,
and Garfield Ground Water Contamination (Garfield, NJ), which is being
proposed based on ATSDR Health Advisory criteria.
    The sites are presented in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       State                    Site name                                     City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA                   Blue Ledge Mine................  Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest.
CA                   New Idria Mercury Mine.........  Idria.
IL                   Sandoval Zinc Company..........  Sandoval.
IN                   Gary Development Landfill......  Gary.
MD                   Sauer Dump.....................  Dundalk.
MS                   Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp--       Columbus.
                      Columbus.
MS                   Red Panther Chemical Company...  Clarksdale.
NC                   CTS of Asheville, Inc..........  Asheville.
NJ                   Garfield Ground Water            Garfield.
                      Contamination.
NM                   MolyCorp, Inc..................  Questa.
NY                   New Cassel/Hicksville Ground     New Cassel/Hicksville.
                      Water Contamination.
OR                   Astoria Marine Construction      Astoria.
                      Company.
OR                   North Ridge Estates............  Klamath Falls.
SC                   US Finishing/Cone Mills........  Greenville.
TN                   Alamo Contaminated Ground Water  Alamo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Re-Proposal of MolyCorp, Inc. Site

    One of the 15 sites included in this proposed rule, MolyCorp, Inc.,
was previously proposed on May 11, 2000 (65 FR 30489). MolyCorp, Inc.
is being re-proposed with a revised HRS score that is based on
extensive new sampling data. Because EPA has used a large amount of new
supporting material and substantially changed the HRS documentation
record, EPA will not be examining comments submitted on the original
May 2000 proposal. EPA will only be reviewing comments received on
today's proposal.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore

subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The 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
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of 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 obligations 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.
2. Is this proposed rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
    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 in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How has EPA complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where 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.

2. Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?
    This 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. Proposing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs.
Proposal does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial
action. Nor does proposal require any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to
take, not directly from the act of proposing a site to be placed on the
NPL. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202
and 205 of UMRA.
    This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. As is mentioned
above, site proposal does not impose any costs and would not require
any action of a small government.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

1. What is Executive Order 13132?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (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'' are 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.''
2. Does Executive Order 13132 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it does not contain any
requirements applicable to States or other levels of government. Thus,
the requirements of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed
rule.
    EPA believes, however, that this proposed rule may be of
significant interest to State governments. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local governments, EPA therefore consulted
with State officials and/or representatives of State governments early
in the process of developing the rule to permit them to have meaningful
and timely input into its development. All sites included in this
proposed rule were referred to EPA by States for listing. For all sites
in this rule, EPA received letters of support either from the Governor
or a State official who was delegated the authority by the Governor to
speak on their behalf regarding NPL listing decisions.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' are defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and
the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Proposing a site to the NPL does not impose any
costs on a tribe or require a tribe to take remedial action. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (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.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this proposed rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.

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

1. What is Executive Order 13211?
    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), requires federal agencies to prepare a ``Statement of
Energy Effects'' when undertaking certain regulatory actions. A
Statement of Energy Effects describes the adverse effects of a
``significant energy action'' on energy supply, distribution and use,
reasonable alternatives to the action, and the expected effects of the
alternatives on energy supply, distribution and use.
2. Does Executive Order 13211 apply to this proposed rule?
    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse
energy impacts because proposing a site to the NPL does not require an
entity to conduct any action that would require energy use, let alone
that which would significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or
usage. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act apply to
this proposed rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

1. What is Executive Order 12898?
    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
2. Does Executive Order 12898 apply to this rule?
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. As this rule does not impose any enforceable duty upon
State, tribal, or local governments, this rule will neither increase
nor decrease environmental protection.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: March 3, 2011.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2011-5340 Filed 3-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 140 (Tuesday, July 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44031]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15722]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0005; FRL-10011-64-Region 2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete FMC Dublin Road Superfund Site (Site)
located in the Towns of Shelby and Ridgeway, Orleans County, NY, from
the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of New York, through the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, have determined that all appropriate
response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance,
monitoring and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by August 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1986-0005. Written comments submitted by mail are temporarily
suspended and no hand deliveries will be accepted. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register. The EPA is
temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Regional Records Centers
for public visitors to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19. In
addition, many site information repositories are closed and information
in these repositories, including the deletion docket, has not been
updated with hardcopy or electronic media. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Isabel R. Fredricks, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 19th Floor,
New York, NY 10007,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    You might also contact: Michael Basile, Community Involvement
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WNY Public
Information Office, 186 Exchange Street, Buffalo, NY 14204, (716) 551-
4410, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the FMC Dublin Road Superfund Site without prior Notice of
Intent to Delete because we view this as a noncontroversial revision
and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for
this deletion in the preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion,
and those reasons are incorporated herein. If we receive adverse
comment(s) on this deletion action, we will withdraw the direct final
Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We will, as
appropriate, consider and address all public comments in a subsequent
final Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete, if
such action is determined to be appropriate. If so, we will not
institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to Delete.
Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information, see the direct final Notice of Deletion
which is located in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
Federal Register.

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.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Peter Lopez,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2020-15722 Filed 7-20-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 25727]
[FR Doc No: E9-12439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1127-000]

Wheelabrator South Broward Inc.; Supplemental Notice that Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

May 21, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Wheelabrator South Broward Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC, 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 10, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12439 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


2015 Ozone Transport FIP Meeting Title:Good Neighbor Plan Proposal Comments Submitted by SPP Date/Time: 9/20/2022, 11AM -12PM EST Agenda/Meeting Summary: Stakeholder engagement conducted to discuss the questions and concerns identified in the comment submissions regarding ensuring electric reliability under the proposed rule raised by reliability authorities during the GNP comment period.  Participants/Affiliations: Name Affiliation Corcoran, Katherine EPA Profeta, Timothy EPA Mark, Jeremy EPA Fisher, Brian EPA Lalani, Imran EPA Selbst, Elizabeth EPA Len Tao (Guest) SPP Lifland, David EPA Murray, Beth EPA Powers, Garrett EPA Joe Ghormley (Guest) SPP LaCount, Melanie EPA Lanny N. (Guest) SPP


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30418-30420]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10564]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0237]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Between
Houghton and Hancock, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations; request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the US41 Bridge, mile 16.0, over the
Keweenaw Waterway between the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan.
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), who owns and operates
the bridge, has requested a deviation that will test a change to the
drawbridge operation schedule to determine whether a permanent change
to the schedule is needed. The Coast Guard is seeking comments from the
public regarding these proposed changes.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on May 26, 2022 through
7 p.m. on September 6, 2022. Comments and related material must reach
the Coast Guard on or before November 1, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0237 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist,
Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The US41 Bridge, mile 16.0, over the Keweenaw Waterway (the bridge)
between the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan, is owned and
operated by MDOT and is the only crossing over the waterway. The bridge
is a combination highway and railroad double deck lift bridge that
provides a horizontal clearance of 7-feet in the down position, 103-
feet in the open positon, and 35-feet in the intermediate position
above low water datum (LWD) based on International Great Lakes Datum of
1985 (IGLD85).
    The Keweenaw Waterway divides the Keweenaw Peninsula and is located
in the middle of the south shore of Lake Superior, a Great Lake known
for hazardous weather conditions. The federal government improved the
Keweenaw Waterway in 1861 to accommodate interstate commerce; the
Keweenaw Waterway acts as a harbor of safe refuge for vessels caught in
bad weather and is the halfway between Duluth, Minnesota and Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan. Commercial vessels, including some over 700-feet in
length, and powered and non-powered recreational vessels utilize the
waterway. The passenger vessel RANGER III operates from the east side
of the US41 Bridge to Isle Royal and is operated by the National Park
Service with a capacity of 128-passengers. A U.S. Coast Guard Station
is located at the far west end of the waterway.
    MDOT has requested a new operating schedule to relieve commuter and
commercial vehicle traffic congestion at the bridge on weekdays; the
new schedule will not apply to federal holidays that fall on weekdays.
Traffic data impacted by COVID-19 restrictions would not provide the
public with an accurate assessment of the traffic conditions at the
bridge and have intentionally have not been considered. The following
data from the 2017 through 2019 drawtender logs and traffic data from
July 9 through July 15, 2019 was provided by MDOT. We have received a
request to consider restricting the bridge openings at this location at
least twice a year since 2016. The comments and data received during
this test deviation will prove or disprove the need for restricted
openings.
    MDOT provided vehicle-crossing data for a five-day workweek and we
discovered from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the traffic at the bridge steadily
increases then decreases without definitive spikes at morning, noon,
and evening, as shown in the below graph.
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MY22.015

    We have placed a color copy of this graph and the three graphs that
follow in the docket. See instructions in Section II for viewing items
in the docket.
    MDOT provided drawtender logs for three years: 2017, 2018, and 2019
to show average opening requests and boating trends.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MY22.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MY22.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR19MY22.018

BILLING CODE 9110-04-C
    The temporary deviation is necessary to gather data on a possible
permanent solution:
    From 7 a.m. on May 26, 2022 through 7 p.m. on September 6, 2022 the
US41 Bridge, mile 16.0, over the Kewanee Waterway, shall open on
signal: Except that from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday, less
federal holidays, the draw only need to be opened on the the hour and
half-hour for any vessel. Between midnight and 4 a.m. the draw shall be
placed in the intermediate position and opened if a 2-hour advance
notice is given. The bridge shall be opened on signal to pass any
vessel over 300 feet in length or at any time 5 or more vessels gather
at the bridge requesting an opening. All other provisions of 33 CFR
117.635 shall remain in effect.
    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through
our Local Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

II. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal Decision
Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0237 in the search box and click
``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results column,
and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the
person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document
for alternate instructions.
    To view documents mentioned in this rule as being available in the
docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and
then select ``Supporting & Related Material'' in the Document Type
column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and
can be viewed by following instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page. We review all
comments received, but we will only post comments that address the
topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic,
inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

M.J. Johnston,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-10564 Filed 5-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 21)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 4671-4674]
[DOCID:fr01fe07-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2006-0928; FRL-8275-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan;
South Dakota; Revisions to New Source Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
revisions adopted by South Dakota on August 29, 2006 to Chapter
74:36:09 of the South Dakota Administrative Rules (Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality). South Dakota submitted the
request for approval of these rule revisions into the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) on September 1, 2006. South Dakota was
granted delegation of authority by EPA on July 6, 1994 to implement and
enforce the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
permitting regulations. EPA's delegation of authority to South Dakota
for the PSD regulations would be rescinded if EPA issues final approval
of this SIP revision, except for the one rule provision that EPA is
proposing to disapprove. This action is being taken under section 110
of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2006-0928, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air and Radiation Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air and Radiation Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2006-0928. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I.
General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov

index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Program,

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Daly, Air and Radiation Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

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

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Approving?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the

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

II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Chapter 74:36:09
(Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality) of the
Administrative Rules of South Dakota. These revisions were submitted to
EPA by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) on September 1, 2006, and relate to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program of the State of South
Dakota. These revisions to Chapter 74:36:09 were adopted by the South
Dakota Board Interim Rules Committee on August 29, 2006. South Dakota
was granted delegation of authority by EPA on July 6, 1994 to implement
and enforce the federal PSD permitting regulations. EPA provided notice
of this delegation in the Federal Register on September 15, 1994 (59 FR
47260).
    On December 31, 2002, EPA published revisions to the federal PSD
and non-attainment NSR regulations in 40 CFR parts 51 and 52 (67 FR
80186). These revisions are commonly referred to as the ``NSR Reform''
regulations and became effective nationally in areas not covered by a
SIP on March 3, 2003. Since South Dakota is delegated for PSD and not
covered by a SIP, the NSR Reform regulations became effective in South
Dakota at that time. These regulatory revisions include provisions for
baseline emissions determinations, actual-to-future-actual methodology,
plantwide applicability limits (PALs), clean units, and pollution
control projects (PCPs). As stated in the December 31, 2002 rulemaking,
State and local permitting agencies must adopt and submit revisions to
their part 51 permitting programs implementing the minimum program
elements of that rulemaking no later than January 2, 2006 (67 FR
80240). As noted above, South Dakota is currently delegated for the PSD
program and is not subject to this requirement, but the State requests
in their submittal to have the PSD program incorporated into South
Dakota's SIP.
    On November 7, 2003, EPA published a reconsideration of the NSR
Reform regulations that clarified two provisions in the regulations by
including a definition of ''replacement unit'' and by clarifying that
the plantwide applicability limitation (PAL) baseline calculation
procedures for newly constructed units do not apply to modified units.
    On June 24, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued its ruling on challenges to the
December 2002 NSR Reform revisions (State of New York et al. v. EPA,
413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Although the Court upheld most of EPA's
rules, it vacated both the Clean Unit and the Pollution Control Project
provisions and remanded back to EPA the recordkeeping provision at 40
CFR 52.21(r)(6) that required a stationary source to keep records of
projects when there was a ``reasonable possibility'' that the project
could result in a significant emissions increase.
    On October 27, 2003 EPA published the Routine Equipment Replacement
Provision (68 FR 61248), which specified at 40 CFR 52.21(cc) the
criteria for routine equipment. On March 17, 2006, the Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit vacated EPA's final Routine Equipment Replacement
Provision (ERP).
    In its revision to Chapter 74:36:09 of the South Dakota
Administrative Rules, South Dakota did not incorporate the vacated
Clean Unit, PCP, and ERP provisions.

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Approving?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to South Dakota's SIP that
would incorporate by reference the federal PSD requirements, found at
40 CFR 52.21, into the State's PSD program. The revision to the South
Dakota Administrative Rules Chapter 74:36:09 incorporates by reference
the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21, as they exist on July 1, 2005, with the
exceptions noted below.
    South Dakota did not incorporate by reference those sections of the
federal rules that do not apply to State activities or are reserved for
the Administrator of the EPA. These sections are 40 CFR 52.21(a)(1)
(plan disapproval), 52.21(q) (public participation), 52.21(s)
(environmental impact statements), 52.21(t) (disputed permit or
redesignations), and 52.21(u) (delegation of authority).
    South Dakota did not incorporate by reference the vacated federal
requirements for Equipment Replacement, Clean Unit, and Pollution
Control Project. Therefore, the following federal provisions found in
40 CFR 52.21 are not incorporated by reference in Chapter 74:36:09: 40
CFR 52.21(x), 52.21(y), 52.21(z), 52.21(cc), 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(e), the
second sentence of 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f), 52.21(a)(2)(vi),
52.21(b)(2)(iii)(h), 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(b), 52.21(b)(3)(vi)(d),
52.21(b)(32), 52.21(b)(42), (b)(55), (b)(56), (b)(57), (b)(58), and the
phrase ``other than projects at a Clean Unit or at a source with a
PAL'' in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6).
    The phrase ``reasonable possibility'' used in the federal rule at
40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) limits the recordkeeping provisions to modifications
at facilities that use the actual-to-future-actual methodology to
calculate emissions changes and that may have a ``reasonable
possibility'' of a significant emissions increase. The South Dakota
rule does incorporate by reference the phrase ``reasonable
possibility'' as it is used at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). EPA has not yet
responded to the D.C. Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping
provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As a result, EPA's final
decision with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further
action on this portion of South Dakota's rule. At this time, however,
South Dakota's recordkeeping provisions are as stringent as the federal
requirements, and are therefore approvable.
    The South Dakota incorporation by reference describes the
circumstances in which the term ``Administrator'' continues to mean the
EPA Administrator and when it means the Secretary of DENR instead.
South Dakota rule 74:36:09:02(1) identifies the following provisions in
Chapter 74:36:09 where the term ``Administrator'' continues to mean the
Administrator of EPA: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(17), 52.21(b)(37)(i),
52.21(b)(43), 52.21(b)(48)(ii)(c), 52.21(b)(50)(i), 52.21(g)(1) to
52.21(g)(6), and 52.21(l)(2). This list does not include 40 CFR
52.21(p)(2). Therefore, under South Dakota's PSD rule, the term
``Administrator'' in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) refers to the Secretary of the
DENR.
    This is inconsistent with EPA's determination that 40 CFR
52.21(p)(2) must still refer to the Administrator of EPA. EPA bases
this determination on a review of its PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166.
While the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 apply to EPA's direct
implementation of the PSD program in States that do not have an
approved PSD SIP, the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 identify the
elements States must include in their SIPs to gain EPA approval. The
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 generally mirror the regulations at 40 CFR
52.21, except that the term ``Administrator'' in 40 CFR 52.21 is often
replaced by the term ``reviewing authority'' in 40 CFR 51.166. However,
40 CFR 51.166(p)(2), which corresponds to 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), retains
the term ``Administrator,'' indicating that in SIPs the required
consultation must continue to occur with the EPA Administrator, not the
Administrator of the State program. In contrast, other provisions in 40
CFR 51.166(p) use the term ``reviewing authority'' in place of
Administrator (e.g., 40 CFR 51.166(p)(1) and (p)(3)).
    In addition, EPA's determination is consistent with recently EPA
approved SIP revisions where the State has incorporated by reference 40
CFR 52.21. Mississippi's PSD regulations identify that ``Administrator
as it appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall mean the Mississippi Environmental
Quality Permit Board, except that: * * * In the following subsections,
it shall continue to mean the Administrator of the USEPA: * * * i.
(p)(2) (concerning Federal Land Manager).'' (See 71 FR 38773, July 10,
2006). Missouri's PSD regulations identify that ``Administrator as it
appears in 40 CFR 52.21 shall refer to the director of the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources' Air Pollution Control Program except
in the following, where it shall continue to refer to the administrator
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: * * * 9. (p)(2) Federal
Land Manager.'' (See 71 FR 36486, (June 27, 2006)).
    Therefore, we are proposing disapproval of 74:36:09:02's
incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), and we are proposing to disapprove
74:36:09:02(1) to the extent it defines ``Administrator,'' as used in
40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), to mean the Secretary of DENR. In all other
respects, we are approving 74:36:09:02 and 74:36:09:02(1). Thus, until
South Dakota revises its PSD rule to address our concern and gains EPA
approval of the revision, 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) will continue to apply as
federal law in lieu of the State-adopted version of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2).
This means that the consultation required by 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2) needs
to occur with the EPA Administrator, not the Secretary of DENR.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2): ``Federal Land Manager. The Federal Land
Manager and the Federal official charged with direct responsibility
for management of Class I lands have an affirmative responsibility
to protect the air quality related values (including visibility) of
any such lands and to consider, in consultation with the
Administrator, whether a proposed source or modification would have
an adverse impact on such values.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If South Dakota submits a SIP revision that revises their PSD rule
to clarify that the term ``Administrator,'' as used in 40 CFR
52.21(p)(2), means the EPA Administrator prior to final EPA action on
this SIP rulemaking, EPA will approve the incorporation by reference of
40 CFR 52.21(p)(2).
    As noted above, South Dakota did not incorporate by reference 40
CFR 52.21(q) (public participation). South Dakota has instead
incorporated by reference 40 CFR 51.166(q) (public participation) at
74:36:09:03. The regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 are what a SIP must
contain for EPA to approve a PSD permit program, and generally mirror
the federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, South Dakota
added in 74:36:09:03 six additional provisions that revise 40 CFR
51.166(q) in order to make the PSD permit public participation
requirements specific to South Dakota.
    The requirements included in South Dakota's PSD program, as
specified in Chapter 74:36:09, are substantively the same as the
federal PSD provisions due to South Dakota's incorporation of the
federal rules by reference. The revisions South Dakota made to 40 CFR
52.21 noted above were reviewed by EPA and found to be as stringent as
the federal rules, except for provision 74:36:09:02(1), noted above.
EPA has, therefore, determined that, except for 74:36:09:02(1), the
proposed revisions are consistent with the program requirements for the
preparation, adoption, and submittal of

implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of
Air Quality, as set forth at 40 CFR 51.166, and are approvable as part
of the South Dakota SIP.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    We propose to partially approve revisions to Administrative Rules
of South Dakota, Chapter 74:36:09 Prevention of Significant
Deterioration into the South Dakota SIP. EPA is proposing to disapprove
74:36:09:02's incorporation of 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), and we are proposing
disapproval of 74:36:09:02(1) to the extent that it defines
``Administrator,'' as used in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(2), to mean the Secretary
of DENR. In all other respects, we are approving 74:36:09:02 and
74:36:09:02(1).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to partially approve and partially
disapprove state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law
and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not
have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action
merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This
proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

     Dated: January 23, 2007.
Kerrigan G. Clough,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. E7-1621 Filed 1-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P