[Federal Register: September 30, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 50176-50177]
[DOCID:fr30se09-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC09-592-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-592); Comment
Request; Extension

September 23, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public
comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described
below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due November 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper
format, and should refer to Docket No. IC09-592-000. Documents must be
prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission submission guidelines at http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. First time users will
have to establish a user name and password (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/eregistration.asp) before eFiling. The Commission will send an
automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments through eFiling.
    Commenters filing electronically should not make a paper filing.
Commenters that are not able to file electronically must send an
original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription (at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/esubscription.asp). In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
Web site using the ``eLibrary'' link and searching on Docket Number
IC09-592. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support (e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC-592 (``Marketing Affiliates of
Interstate Pipelines, Standards of Conduct for Transmission
Providers,'' OMB No. 1902-0157) includes the reporting, recordkeeping,
and posting requirements in:
    [ssbox] 18 CFR Part 358 (Standards of Conduct),\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The requirements in 18 CFR Part 358 (that are related to the
natural gas industry) are included in OMB No. 1902-0157 and this
Notice. However, the requirements in Part 358 that are related to
the electric utility industry are covered by FERC-717 (OMB Control
No. 1902-0173) and are not a subject of this Notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [ssbox] 18 CFR 250.16, and
    [ssbox] FERC Form No. 592 log/format, that is posted at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eforms.asp#592.
    Hereafter, this Notice will refer to this group of collections of
information as ``FERC-592.''
    Under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), the Commission has
the regulatory responsibility to ensure that pipeline rates are just
and reasonable. In order to ensure just and reasonable rates and
services, the Commission must achieve two objectives: prevent undue
discrimination in natural gas markets, and promote competitive and
efficient markets while mitigating market power. In short, the
Commission's regulatory policy must seek to reconcile the objectives of
fostering an efficient market that provides good alternatives to as
many shippers as possible, while at the same time creating a regulatory
framework that is fair and protects captive customers without good
alternatives.
    The ``FERC-592'' information (that is posted on the Web site,
maintained, or provided by the respondents, as required) is used by the
Commission to monitor the pipeline's transportation, sales, and storage
activities for its marketing affiliate, and to deter undue
discrimination by pipeline companies in favor of their affiliates. The
information is also used by non-affiliated shippers, customers, and
others (such as state commissions) to determine whether they have been
harmed by affiliate preference and, in some cases, to prepare evidence
for proceedings following the filing of a complaint or that address NGA
section 4 rate cases.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current reporting requirements, with no change.
    Burden Statement: The estimated annual public reporting burden
follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of       Number of    Average burden
  Information collection (``FERC-592,'' OMB No.     respondents    responses per     hours per     Total annual
                   1902-0157)                        annually       respondent       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             (1)             (2)             (3)     (1) x (2) x
                                                                                (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 CFR Part 358 \1\
18 CFR 250.16
FERC Form No. 592 log/format....................              85               1          116.62           9,913
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: These figures may not be exact, due to rounding.

    The total estimated annual cost burden \2\ to respondents is
$611,446.22 [(9,913 hours/2,080 hours per year) x $128,297/year]. The
average annual cost per respondent is $7,193.48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The average number of hours an employee works per year is
2,080. The average employee costs $128,297 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the log of data used to
allocate capacity and the transportation discount information pipelines
required to post and/or maintain under 18 CFR 250.16 are still being
used, (2) whether the format for submitting data prescribed in the FERC
Form No. 592 needs to be updated, (3) whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (4) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (5) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (6) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23516 Filed 9-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 164 (Monday, August 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52167-52168]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18465]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89594; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2020-051]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rule 4759

August 18, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 6, 2020, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4759 (Data Feeds Utilized) to
change the primary source of quotation data of certain market centers
in the list of proprietary and network processor feeds that the
Exchange utilizes for the handling, routing, and execution of orders as
well as regulatory compliance processes related to those functions.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to update and amend the data feeds table in
Rule 4759, which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific
proprietary and network processor feeds that the Exchange utilizes for
the handling, routing, and execution of orders, and for performing the
regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions.
Specifically, the table would be amended to reflect that the Exchange
will receive a direct feed from NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE
National''), NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago''), and Investors
Exchange LLC (``IEX'') as its primary quotation data source and CQS/
UQDF will become its secondary data source for the handling, routing
and execution of orders and for performing regulatory compliance
processes related to each of those functions. The change to the primary
sources reflects the Exchange's effort to include an additional source
in the event the primary source is unable to provide data.
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule change no
later than ninety (90) days following the effective date of the
proposed rule change. The Exchange notes this additional time gives the
Exchange time to configure its system accordingly.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market
because updating its data feeds table of market centers for which the
exchange consumes quotation data through a direct feed will provide
clarity to market participants. Additionally, it is necessary and
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors to
update the Exchange's table of market centers in Rule 4759 in order to
provide transparency with respect to all the direct proprietary and
network processor feeds from which the Exchange obtains market data.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
designed to address any competitive issue; instead, its purpose is to
enhance transparency with respect to the operation of the Exchange and
its use of market data feeds.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if

it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-051 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-051. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2020-051 and should be submitted
on or before September  14, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-18465 Filed 8-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60049-60052]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25165]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0279; FRL-9935-05-Region 9]

Air Plan Approval; California; Mammoth Lakes; Redesignation;
PM10 Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve, as a revision to the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP), California's request to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes
nonattainment area to attainment for the 1987 National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter of ten microns or less
(PM10). Also, EPA is taking final action to approve the
PM10 maintenance plan for the Mammoth Lakes area and the
associated motor vehicle emissions budgets for use in transportation
conformity determinations. Lastly, EPA is finalizing our approval of
the 2012 attainment year emissions inventory. We are taking these final
actions because the SIP revision meets the requirements of the Clean
Air Act and EPA guidance for maintenance plans and motor vehicle
emissions budgets.

DATES: This rule will be effective on November 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0279 for
this action. Generally, documents in the

docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy format at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material, large maps, multi-volume reports) and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4111<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA's Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action

    On July 30, 2015, EPA proposed to approve the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 redesignation request and maintenance plan. We proposed
this action because California's SIP revision meets the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements and EPA guidance concerning redesignations to
attainment of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard) and maintenance plans (80 FR 45477). For our detailed
procedural and substantive review of the State's SIP submittal and our
discussion of our findings and rationale for our proposal and this
final action, please see our proposal and the docket for this action.
    First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), EPA proposed to approve the
State's request to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes PM10
nonattainment area to attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. In our
July 30, 2015 proposal, we concluded that the area has met the five
criteria for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area
has attained the PM10 NAAQS over the period 2009-2014; (2)
the required portions of the SIP are fully approved for the area; (3)
the improvement in ambient air quality in the area is due to permanent
and enforceable reductions in PM10 emissions; (4) California
has met all requirements applicable to the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part
D of the CAA; and, (5) the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance
Plan, as described below, meets the requirements of CAA section 175A.
    Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA proposed to approve
as a revision to the SIP, the maintenance plan developed by the Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) entitled ``2014
Update Air Quality Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request for the
Town of Mammoth Lakes'' (herein and in our proposal referred to as the
Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan), dated May 5, 2014,
submitted by California, through the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), to EPA on October 21, 2014.\1\ EPA proposed to find that the
Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan meets the requirements
in section 175A of the CAA. The plan's maintenance demonstration shows
that the Mammoth Lakes area will continue to attain the PM10
NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e. through 2030) by
continued implementation of the local control measures approved into
the SIP. The plan's contingency provisions incorporate a process for
identifying new or more stringent control measures in the event of a
future monitored violation. Finally, EPA proposed to approve the plan's
2012 emission inventory as meeting the requirements of CAA section 172
and 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the docket for this action for copies of the
California's submittal documents including the October 21, 2014
submittal letter from the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, EPA proposed to approve the motor vehicle emission budgets
(budgets) in the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan because
we find they meet the applicable transportation conformity requirements
under 40 CFR 93.118(e). With our proposal published July 30, 2015, EPA
informed the public that we are reviewing the plan's budgets for
adequacy and that we started the public comment period on adequacy of
the proposed budgets. This comment period closed on August 31, 2015. We
received no public comments concerning the adequacy of the proposed
PM10 motor vehicle emissions budgets.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. During this
comment period we received no comments on our proposal.

III. EPA's Final Action

    To conclude, based on our review of the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 Maintenance Plan and redesignation request submitted by
California, air quality monitoring data, and other relevant materials
contained within our docket, EPA finds that the State has addressed all
the necessary requirements for redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes
nonattainment area to attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, pursuant
to CAA sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A.
    First, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are approving the State's
request, which accompanied the submittal of the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 nonattainment area to attainment for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS. Our redesignation of the Mammoth Lakes area is
based on our determination that the area has met the five criteria for
redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E): (1) The area has attained
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS as demonstrated by 2009-2014 data;
\2\ (2) the relevant portions of the SIP are fully approved; (3) the
improvement in air quality in the Mammoth Lakes area is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in PM10 emissions; (4)
California has met all requirements applicable to the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 nonattainment area with respect to section 110 and part
D of the CAA; and, (5) our approval of the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 Maintenance Plan, as part of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We reviewed 2015 preliminary data received from the State
and found that the Mammoth Lakes area did not show exceedances of
the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS in the first quarter of 2015.
Second quarter data was not submitted by the State in time for
consideration within this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is approving the
Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan and finds that it meets
the requirements of Section 175A. We find that the maintenance
demonstration shows that the area will continue to attain the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS for at least 10 years beyond redesignation (i.e.,
through 2030). We find that the Maintenance Plan provides a contingency
process for identifying and adopting new or more stringent control
measures if a monitored violation of the PM10 NAAQS occurs.
Finally, we are approving the 2012 emissions inventory as meeting
applicable requirements for emissions inventories in Sections 172 and
175A of the CAA.
    Last, we find that the Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance
Plan's motor vehicle emissions budgets meet applicable CAA requirements
for maintenance plans and transportation conformity requirements under
40 CFR 93.118(e). With the effective date of this action, these
approved budgets must be used in any future regional PM10
regional emissions

analysis conducted by the State and the Federal Highway Administration.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and,
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the State plan that EPA is approving today does not
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In
those areas of Indian country, this rule, as it relates to the
maintenance plan, does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2015.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--[Amended]

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding and reserving paragraph (c)(461)
and adding paragraph (c)(462) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (461) [Reserved]
    (462) The following plan was submitted on October 21, 2014, by the
Governor's designee.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional Materials.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD).
    (1) ``2014 Air Quality Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request
for the Town of Mammoth Lakes'' (Mammoth Lakes PM10
Maintenance Plan), adopted on May 5, 2014.
    (2) GBUAPCD Board Order #140505-03 adopting the Mammoth Lakes
PM10 Maintenance Plan, dated May 5, 2014.
    (B) State of California Air Resources Board (CARB).
    (1) CARB Resolution 14-27 adopting the redesignation request and
Mammoth Lakes PM10 Maintenance Plan, dated September 18,
2014.

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--[Amended]

0
4. Section 81.305 is amended in the table entitled ``California-PM-10''
by revising the entry under Mono County for the ``Mammoth Lake planning
area'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                                California--PM-10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Designation                           Classification
         Designated area         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Date                 Type              Date               Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Mono County
    Mammoth Lakes planning area.  November 4, 2015...  Attainment.........  ..............  ....................
    Includes the following
     sections:
        a. Sections 1-12, 17,
         and 18 of Township T4S,
         R28E;
        b. Sections 25-36 of
         Township T3S, R28E;
        c. Sections 25-36 of
         Township T3S, R27E;
        d. Sections 1-18 of
         Township T4S, R27E;
         and,
        e. Sections 25 and 36 of
         Township T3S, R26E.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-25165 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 147 (Wednesday, July 31, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37107-37112]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16199]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9997-52-Region 5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Duell & Gardner Landfill
Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Duell & Gardner
Landfill Superfund Site (Duell & Gardner Site), located in Dalton
Township, Muskegon County, Michigan, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final deletion is being published by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department of Environment,
Great Lakes and Energy (MDEGLE) because EPA has 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: This direct final deletion is effective September 30, 2019
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 30, 2019. 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-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
    https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion Coordinator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Hand deliver: Superfund Records Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South,
Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business
hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. 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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to

technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Superfund Records
Center, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 7th Floor South, Chicago, IL 60604.
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Dalton Township Hall, Superfund Site Information Repository, 1616
East Riley Thompson Road, Muskegon, MI 49445. Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Hours: Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randolph Cano, NPL Deletion
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (SR-6J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Deletion of
the Duell & Gardner Site, from the NPL. The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the NCP, which EPA promulgated pursuant to
Section 105 of CERCLA of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL as the
list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public
health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,
sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures that EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the Duell & Gardner Site
and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria. Section V
discusses EPA's action to delete the Duell & Gardner Site from the NPL
unless adverse comments are received during the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA conducts five-
year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial actions
where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at a
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is deleted
from the NPL. EPA may initiate further action to ensure continued
protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes available
that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a significant
release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be
restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Duell & Gardner
Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Michigan prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
co-published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State thirty (30) working days for review
of this action and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to
their publication today, and the State, through the MDEGLE, has
concurred on the deletion of the Duell & Gardner Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, an announcement of the availability of the parallel Notice
of Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, the
Muskegon Chronical. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the Duell &
Gardner Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Duell & Gardner Site information
repositories identified in the ADDRESSES Section of this rule.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion in the
Federal Register before its effective date and will prepare a response
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent to Delete and the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    The Duell & Gardner Site (CERCLIS ID: MID980504716) is an 80-acre
parcel of land located at 1285 East Bard Road in Dalton Township,
Muskegon County, Michigan, approximately five miles north of the City
of Muskegon, Michigan. See Figure 1 in the Docket. The landfill
consisted mostly of municipal debris and waste spread out over an
eight-acre area in the southern half of the property. During the
cleanup, the waste was consolidated into a four-acre area and covered
with a landfill cap.
    The Duell & Gardner Site is not fenced; however the entrance road
to

the landfill is gated. The landfill is secluded and is posted with
warning signs and permanent markers around the perimeter indicating
that the landfill is a hazardous waste site.
    The Duell & Gardner Site is located in a primarily residential and
agricultural area. Two single family homes and an agricultural field
are located in the northern half of the Duell & Gardner Site property.
These residences are supplied with drinking water from two wells that
are located upgradient of the landfill. These wells are not impacted by
contaminants from the Duell & Gardner Site. Several residential wells
are located approximately one-half mile in the general downgradient
direction of the landfill. Twenty-one private wells located within this
area were sampled during the investigations and were found not to be
contaminated by the Duell & Gardner Site.
    The Duell & Gardner Site owners used the property for waste
disposal activities from the mid-1940s to 1973. From the 1940s until
1969, the property owner/landfill operator disposed municipal and
industrial waste in trenches, depressions and on the ground surface of
approximately eight-acres of the 80-acre property. In 1969, new owners
began operating the landfill as a licensed solid waste disposal
facility. From 1969 until 1973, the landfill operators disposed waste,
including liquid waste, in unlined trenches excavated on the property.
    The Muskegon County Health Department (MCHD) periodically inspected
the landfill from 1969 through September 1973. In 1971, the Michigan
Department of Public Health (MDPH) stipulated that liquid waste could
not be disposed in the landfill. In 1973, MCHD noted that the landfill
operators were disposing liquid waste in the landfill. The Michigan
Department of Public Health (MDPH) ordered that the landfill be closed
in January 1974, after which the landfill ceased accepting waste.
    Initial concern regarding possible groundwater contamination at the
Duell & Gardner Site arose in 1977 when the MDPH was considering
approving the construction of a community water supply in the area. In
1979, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (subsequently
known as the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, or MDEQ, and
now MDEGLE) collected soil and drum samples from the property. The
samples indicated that polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were present in
the soil.
    EPA collected surface water samples from a tributary of Bear Creek
in 1981. In 1982, EPA installed and sampled four groundwater monitoring
wells at the Duell & Gardner Site. EPA determined that the groundwater
below the property was generally flowing to the southeast. EPA did not
detect any significant concentrations of organic or inorganic compounds
in these groundwater monitoring wells.
    EPA proposed the Duell & Gardner Site to the NPL on December 30,
1982 (47 FR 58476). EPA finalized the Duell & Gardner Site NPL listing
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658).
    In 1984, the MDNR and EPA found and sampled drums in a wooded area
adjacent to the landfill. The samples showed evidence of organic and
inorganic contamination. MDNR investigated further and identified 21
distinct drum and waste disposal areas at the Duell & Gardner Site in
September 1985. MDNR found approximately 550 drums in various stages of
deterioration scattered in the woods adjacent to the landfill in groups
of 9 to 140 drums. MDNR also found hundreds of small laboratory
bottles, areas of refuse and debris and piles of unidentified sludge-
like material scattered around the base of the landfill.
    EPA conducted a CERCLA removal action at the Duell & Gardner Site
in 1986. EPA removed 550 drums in various stages of deterioration from
the Duell & Gardner Site for off-site disposal. EPA also removed some
of the laboratory bottles, sludge-like material and soil for off-site
disposal. EPA implemented the CERCLA removal action to prevent
contaminants from leaching into the groundwater. This action reduced
the risk of ingesting contaminated groundwater and the risks from
direct exposure to contaminants through dermal contact and incidental
ingestion.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

    MDNR initiated a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
at the Duell & Gardner Site in 1986. The purpose of the RI/FS was to
quantify the residual contamination at the Duell & Gardner Site and to
identify and evaluate cleanup alternatives. MDNR also conducted a
Treatability study to identify technologies which might eliminate or
reduce the toxicity, mobility and/or volume of the contaminants present
in the soil and groundwater at the landfill. MDNR conducted the RI/FS
using Federal Superfund funding.
    MNDR completed the RI report, the Treatability Study report and the
FS report in 1992. The results of the RI indicated that soil was
contaminated with organic compounds including bis(2-
ethylhexy)phthalate, gentian violet, aniline, and N,N-dimethylaniline.
PCBs and pesticides (DDT, DDD, and DDE) were also detected in the soil
at two locations. Gentian violet (a dye and at one time used as a
topical antiseptic), often referred to as crystal violet, was detected
at concentrations as high as 188 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg). Other
contaminants detected in soil included pentachlorophenol and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons including chrysene,
benzo(k)fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and benzo(a)anthracene.
    Groundwater sampling indicated that two contaminated groundwater
plumes were emanating from the Duell & Gardner Site. One plume
contained chloroform and carbon tetrachloride. The other plume
contained aniline and N,N-dimethylaniline. The chloroform and carbon
tetrachloride were only detected in the shallow portion of the aquifer
(ten to twenty feet below ground surface) while aniline and N,N-
dimethylaniline were found in deeper portions of the aquifer, up to 100
feet below ground surface. Gentian violet and tetrachloroethylene were
also detected in the groundwater. The 21 private wells sampled
downgradient of the landfill were not contaminated.
    MDNR collected surface water and sediment samples from the
tributary to Bear Creek located east of the Duell & Gardner Site and
sediment samples from the drainage ditch located south of the property.
Neither of these drainage systems was contaminated.
    The FS evaluated five cleanup alternatives for soil and four
cleanup alternatives for groundwater. The cleanup alternatives
evaluated for soil included: no action; excavation and on-site capping;
excavation, on-site vitrification and capping; excavation, on-site
thermal treatment and capping; and excavation, off-site incineration
and capping. The cleanup alternatives evaluated for groundwater
included: no action; land use restrictions and monitoring; groundwater
extraction with ultraviolet oxidation treatment; and groundwater
extraction with carbon adsorption treatment.

Selected Remedy

    The remedial action objectives (RAOs) for the Duell & Gardner Site
are to: (1) Prevent direct human exposure to soil having concentrations
of chemicals of concern resulting in a cumulative excess cancer risk of
greater than 1 x 10\-4\; (2) Prevent future residents from using
groundwater containing carbon tetrachloride and N,N-dimethylaniline
contaminants above drinking water standards as a domestic water supply;

and (3) Restore groundwater and all soil areas outside of the landfill
to their beneficial use (residential).
    EPA and MNDR selected a cleanup remedy for the Duell & Gardner Site
in a September 7, 1993 Record of Decision (ROD). The selected cleanup
remedy included the following main components: (1) Excavation of
contaminated soil with on-site low-temperature thermal treatment; (2)
Contaminated groundwater extraction with on-site carbon adsorption
treatment; (3) Construction of a clay cap over the landfill area
meeting the requirements of Michigan Act 641 (a solid waste cap); (4)
Institutional controls such as deed restrictions to prevent the
installation of drinking water wells in the affected area of the site
during remediation; (5) Groundwater monitoring to assess the
remediation and assure containment of the contaminant plumes; (6) A
pre-design investigation to further define the limits of the
contamination.
    The MDEQ (formerly the MDNR and now known as the MDEGLE) conducted
the pre-design investigation in 1996 and follow-up groundwater sampling
in 1998. The investigations showed that the extent of soil and
groundwater contamination was less than previously identified and that
the size and mass of the groundwater plumes appeared to have stabilized
or decreased since the RI. In addition, the State of Michigan revised
its cleanup levels, which resulted in a reduction in the volume of soil
requiring remediation.
    EPA issued a Proposed Plan requesting public comment on amending
the soil and groundwater cleanups in 1999. Following public comment,
MDEQ conducted a study to better understand the groundwater
contamination at the Duell & Gardner Site. MDEQ's study cast doubt on
the stability of the groundwater plumes and whether the groundwater
contaminants would naturally degrade before they migrated beyond the
Duell & Gardner Site boundary. Due to these concerns and concerns about
the ability to reliably restrict the use of contaminated groundwater
downgradient of the landfill, EPA and MDEQ decided that the groundwater
components of the 1993 ROD should remain unchanged.
    EPA issued the ROD Amendment on June 29, 2001. The amended ROD
retained the construction of a landfill cap; the groundwater extraction
and treatment system; and the placement of use restrictions or
institutional controls (ICs) on parts of the Duell & Gardner Site
property to prevent the installation of drinking water wells until the
groundwater cleanup standards (residential) are met. In addition, the
ROD Amendment required permanent restrictions for the capped area to
prevent excavation or other unauthorized activities. With respect to
the soil, the amended ROD eliminated low-temperature thermal desorption
from the remedy and required excavation and the appropriate disposal of
contaminated soils. The ROD Amendment also updated the cleanup
standards for soil and groundwater to current Michigan Part 201
criteria (see Tables 2A and 2B in the Docket).

Response Actions

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conducted the remedial
design (RD) and remedial action (RA) at the Duell & Gardner Site
through an interagency agreement with EPA. USACE completed the RD in
2000. USACE and its contractor, IT Corporation, mobilized to the Duell
& Gardner Site to start the RA construction in October 2000. USACE and
IT Corporation completed the landfill cap construction in April 2001.
    During the RA, USACE conducted additional soil characterization
activities and consolidated the eight-acre landfill waste area into a
four-acre rectangular landfill area. While performing the Landfill
Boundary Verification activities, USACE discovered approximately 2,000
cubic yards of gentian violet-impacted soils within the four-acre
landfill area. USACE excavated the waste and sampled the material.
After discussions with EPA and MDEQ, USACE consolidated the excavated
material into a special waste cell constructed within the landfill cap.
USACE collected confirmation soil samples from the excavated areas. The
confirmation samples did not show any regulatory exceedances for
gentian violet.
    Confirmation soil samples collected from soil excavations in the
southwestern portion of the eight-acre waste area showed 4-chloro-
methylphenoxy acetic acid (MCPA), a systemic phenoxy herbicide used to
control annual and perennial weeds, at concentrations above Michigan
Part 201 Soil Criteria for the Protection of Residential Drinking Water
at one location. USACE did not remove additional soil from the
excavations, however, since the bottoms of the excavations were at the
water table and additional excavation would not reduce the source of
MCPA contamination in groundwater. As a result, the confirmation
samples from two grids within this area remain above Michigan's
residential drinking water protection criteria of 390 micrograms per
liter ([micro]g/L).
    During hot spot excavation, i.e., the impacted soil in the area of
soil sample locations SL-A8, SL-SB-11, and SS-31, USACE sampled the
material and found that it did not meet the definition of hazardous
waste. Based on the sample results and discussions between EPA, MDEQ
and USACE, the material was consolidated under the landfill cap. The
2001 ROD Amendment accounted for this change.
    USACE's and IT Corporation's soil excavation and landfill
completion activities are documented in the 2001 Landfill Construction
Report prepared by Shaw, which subsequently acquired IT Corporation.
    USACE completed the construction and start-up of the groundwater
extraction and treatment system on June 29, 2001. The system consisted
of four recovery wells, an infiltration gallery, a treatment building
containing two granular activated carbon units, various pumps, a 3000-
gallon retention tank, conveyance piping, appurtenant devices, and
automatic shut-down capabilities.
    EPA and MDEQ inspected the construction activities at the Duell &
Gardner Site on July 11, 2001. EPA and MDEQ inspected the capped
landfill and the operating groundwater treatment system. EPA determined
that the landfill cap and the groundwater treatment system met the
objectives of the interagency agreement. Three deficiency items were
noted including painting the groundwater treatment building, installing
a garage door, and installing a lock on the observation well by the
infiltration gallery. USACE completed those items on August 3, 2001.
EPA determined that the groundwater treatment system was operational
and functional on August 10, 2002.
    USACE reconfigured the groundwater treatment system in 2003 to
provide a higher operating efficiency. The modifications included: New
granular activated carbon units incorporated into the recovery well
system; additional bag filters; the chemical treatment of wells to
reduce well fouling; and replacing the original re-pressurization pump
to more efficiently convey backwash water into the infiltration
gallery. In 2005, USACE installed a new higher capacity recovery well
to capture the groundwater plume more effectively. The 2003 and 2005
modifications were consistent with the 2001 ROD Amendment.
    EPA installed and sampled three new groundwater monitoring wells in
2009 in the southeastern corner of the Duell & Gardner Site. EPA
installed the wells

to determine whether the contaminant plume was migrating off-site. The
laboratory results indicated that the groundwater constituents in the
new monitoring wells did not exceed Michigan Part 201 cleanup
standards.
    USACE operated the groundwater extraction and treatment system and
conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring at the Duell & Gardner Site
until 2010. In 2010, the groundwater monitoring data indicated that
chemical concentrations in groundwater had decreased to below the
cleanup standards for two consecutive quarters.
    EPA and MDEQ approved that the system be shut down. USACE shut the
system down and continued quarterly groundwater monitoring until 2012.
In 2012, the groundwater data confirmed that the groundwater extraction
and treatment system could be permanently decommissioned. USACE
decommissioned the groundwater extraction and treatment system,
including the majority of monitoring wells and recovery wells, all
transmission piping, wiring and the infiltration basin in 2012 in
accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan. The groundwater data
and completion of the RA activities at the Duell & Gardner Site is
documented in USACE's 2012 Final Remedial Action Report.
    EPA, MDEQ and USACE conducted a Pre-Final Site Walk and a Post-
Decommissioning Site Walk on July 25, 2012. EPA completed a Final Close
Out Report documenting the completion of all response actions at the
Duell & Gardner Site in accordance with EPA's Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites (OLEM Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011) on
November 8, 2012.

Cleanup Levels

    The cleanup levels for soil outside the capped area and groundwater
in the 1993 ROD were based on Michigan Act 307 Type B Residential
Cleanup Standards. Michigan later replaced Act 307 with Act 451.
Michigan Act 451 Part 201 included revised cleanup criteria for soil
and groundwater. The 2001 ROD Amendment for the Duell & Gardner Site
updated the cleanup criteria for soil and groundwater to Michigan's
then-current Part 201 Residential Cleanup criteria. Tables 2A and 2B in
the Docket are from the 2001 ROD Amendment and show the updated
Michigan Part 201 Residential Cleanup Criteria for the Duell & Gardner
Site, compared to the previous Michigan Act 307 Criteria selected in
the 1993 ROD.
    USACE confirmed that soil outside the capped area met MDEQ Part 201
Residential Criteria through additional soil characterization, soil
confirmation sampling and Landfill Boundary Verification during the
soil RA. USACE conducted the soil verification sampling in accordance
with the USACE's Chemistry Scope of Work. Except as noted above for the
two soil samples at the water table that contained MCPA above MDEQ soil
criteria for residential groundwater protection, no other regulatory
criteria were exceeded. The specific details of the verification
sampling are detailed in the 2001 Landfill Construction Report.
    USACE conducted quarterly groundwater monitoring to monitor the
effectiveness of the groundwater extraction system and chemical
concentrations in groundwater over time. USACE conducted the monitoring
in accordance with the EPA and MDEQ-approved Groundwater Monitoring
Plan. In 2010, after nine years of operation, EPA and MDEQ agreed that
the groundwater extraction and treatment system could be shut down
because contaminant concentrations in groundwater were below Part 201
Residential Drinking Water Criteria for two consecutive quarters. In
accordance with the Groundwater Monitoring Plan, USACE continued to
sample the groundwater on a quarterly basis to verify that contaminant
levels remained below the cleanup standards.
    USACE conducted six additional quarterly groundwater monitoring
events. In 2012, USACE compared the March 2012 groundwater monitoring
results to MDEQ Part 201 Residential Drinking Water Criteria and MDEQ
Part 22 Groundwater Quality Standards. The laboratory results did not
exceed any of the Part 201 or Part 22 criteria. Based on the data, EPA
and MDEQ agreed that the groundwater extraction and treatment system
could be permanently decommissioned. The groundwater monitoring data
and the completion of the cleanup activities at the Duell & Gardner
Site are documented in the 2012 Final Remedial Action Report. The
remaining chemicals of concern in the on-site groundwater are below
Part 201 Groundwater Cleanup Criteria and will be allowed to naturally
attenuate.

Operation and Maintenance

    The Duell & Gardner Site officially transferred from the 10-year
EPA-led long-term remedial action phase of the project to MDEQ-lead
(now MDEGLE-lead) Operation and Maintenance (O&M) in 2012. The transfer
included the following requirements: (1) Abide by the prescribed ICs
and Land Use Controls for Long-Term Stewardship; (2) Implement
outstanding ICs as required by the ROD, i.e., the installation of
permanent markers; (3) Maintain site security; (4) Ensure vegetation is
routinely maintained to prevent damage to the integrity of the landfill
cap; and (5) Conduct Annual Monitoring Events for the remaining on-site
monitoring wells.
    MDEGLE conducts the O&M in accordance with the November 5, 2012
Operations, Maintenance & Monitoring Plan. The existing groundwater
monitoring well network is comprised of 23 monitoring wells and four
piezometers. MDEGLE collects groundwater samples annually from the
wells. The laboratory data is compared to Part 201 groundwater
protection standards. The monitoring well protective casings are to
remain closed and locked at all times.
    The property owners of the Duell & Gardner Site recorded a
restrictive covenant at the Muskegon County Register of Deeds on
October 30, 2007, Instrument 5260434, Liber 3759, Page 813. The
covenant prohibits the use of groundwater contaminated with VOCs above
drinking water standards, prevents disturbance to the landfill cap and
any other activities that may interfere with the remedy, O&M and other
measures necessary to ensure the effectiveness and the integrity of the
remedial action.
    The groundwater restrictions apply to Parcels A (20.96 acres) and B
(the 4.28 acre landfill parcel) shown on the Duell and Gardner Site
Survey (see Survey and Figure 2 in the Docket). The landfill cap
restrictions apply to Parcel B shown in the survey. The restrictions
prohibiting the groundwater monitoring wells from being disturbed apply
to the 23 monitoring wells remaining on the Duell & Gardner Site
property.

Five Year Review

    EPA conducted statutory five year reviews (FYRs) of the Duell &
Gardner Site in 2005, 2010 and 2015. The purpose of the FYRs is to
determine whether the remedy at a site remains protective of human
health and the environment. The Duell & Gardner Site requires statutory
FYRs because hazardous substances remain at the Duell & Gardner Site
above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure.
The review methods, findings, and conclusions are documented in the FYR
reports. In addition, the FYR reports identify issues found during the
review, if any, and recommendations to address them.
    EPA's most recent FYR of the Duell & Gardner Site, in March 2015,
determined that the remedy at the Duell & Gardner Site is protective of
human health and the environment. Impacted

soils have been removed; wastes have been consolidated into a four-acre
landfill and covered with an impermeable cover; groundwater is
currently meeting Michigan Part 201 and Part 22 water standards and no
longer needs treatment; and ICs to restrict current and future use of
the contaminated areas and to ensure long-term stewardship have been
implemented. ICs in the form of an environmental covenant are in place
for the Duell & Gardner Site. The IC Plan also ensures Long-Term
Stewardship because it establishes a process to ensure that ICs are in
place, maintained, and effective.
    The FYR did not identify any issues or recommendations that would
affect the current or future protectiveness of the remedy at the Duell
& Gardner Site. The next FYR will be completed on or before March 2,
2020.

Community Involvement

    EPA and the State satisfied public participation activities as
required in CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and 9617.
MDEQ (formerly the MDNR and currently known as the MDEGLE) prepared a
Community Relations Plan at the start of the RI/FS and established
information repositories for site-related reports and documents at
MDEQ's offices and at Dalton Township's offices. MDEQ also held three
public meetings concerning the Duell & Gardner Site and issued a series
of eight progress reports to the public.
    MDEQ and EPA published announcements about their proposed action
plan and proposed remedy amendment for the Duell & Gardner Site, 30-day
public comment periods, and the availability of public meetings, in the
Muskegon Chronical in 1993 and 1999. The agencies responded to
significant comments received on the proposed plan and proposed ROD
Amendment in Responsiveness Summaries attached to the 1993 ROD and the
2001 ROD Amendment.
    MDEQ and EPA published notifications in the Muskegon Chronical
announcing the start of each of the three FYRs conducted in 2005, 2010
and 2015 inviting the public to comment and express their concerns
about the Duell & Gardner Site. The agencies did not receive any public
comments.
    EPA arranged to publish an advertisement announcing the publication
of this rule and the 30-day public comment period in the Muskegon
Chronical prior to its publication in the Federal Register. Documents
in the deletion docket which EPA relied on to support the deletion of
the Duell & Gardner Site from the NPL are available to the public in
the Duell & Gardner Site information repositories and at http://www.regulations.gov.

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

    The November 8, 2012, Final Close Out Report documents that EPA and
MDEGLE have successfully implemented all appropriate response actions
at the Duell & Gardner Site in accordance with the 1993 ROD, the 2001
ROD Amendment and Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List
Sites (OLEM Directive 9320.2-22, May 2011).
    The cleanup actions specified in 1993 ROD and the 2001 ROD
Amendment for the Duell & Gardner Site have been implemented and the
Duell & Gardner Site meets acceptable risk levels for all media and
exposure pathways. The ongoing IC and long-term stewardship actions
required at the Duell & Gardner Site are consistent with EPA policy and
guidance.
    Contaminated drums and other materials were removed from the Duell
& Gardner Site under a CERCLA removal action, and residual materials
were excavated and consolidated with materials under a low-permeability
landfill cap. Groundwater sampling results confirm that the Duell &
Gardner Site does not pose any threat to human health or the
environment. Therefore, the EPA has determined that no further
Superfund response is necessary at the Duell & Gardner Site to protect
human health and the environment.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Michigan, has determined that all
required response actions have been implemented at the Duell & Gardner
Site and that no further response action is appropriate.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Michigan through the MDEGLE,
has determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA,
other than operation and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews
have been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Duell & Gardner
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 30, 2019 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
August 30, 2019. 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 its effective date and the
deletion will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response to comments
and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of
Intent to Delete and the comments already received. There will be no
additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: July 17, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons set out in this document, 40 CFR part 300 is
amended as follows:

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
``MI'', ``Duell & Gardner Landfill'', ``Dalton Township''.
[FR Doc. 2019-16199 Filed 7-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35462-35464]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14339]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67156; File No. SR-ICC-2012-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Schedule 502 of the ICE Clear Credit LLC Rules To Amend the Reference
Entity Name for Three Credit Default Swap Contracts and the Reference
Obligation International Securities Identification Number Associated
With One Credit Default Swap Contract

June 7, 2012
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 19, 2012, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared primarily by ICC. ICC filed the proposal pursuant to

Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \4\
thereunder so that the proposal was effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of proposed rule change is to amend Schedule 502 of the
ICC Rules in order to reflect the correct credit default swap (``CDS'')
reference entity name for three single name CDS contracts (Exelon
Corporation, Beam Inc., and XLIT Ltd.) and the Contract Reference
Obligation International Securities Identification Number (``Contract
Reference Obligation ISIN'') for one single name CDS contract (Exelon
Corporation) that ICC currently clears. Amended Schedule 502 would also
reflect the industry standard Contract Reference Obligation ISIN of one
CDS contract and reference entity names of three CDS contracts.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. ICC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission has modified the test of the summaries
prepared by ICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(A) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    The purpose of the rule change is to correct Schedule 502 of the
ICC Rules, which lists all the Contract Reference Obligation ISINs and
entity names of all single name CDS contracts that ICC clears. This
amendment would revise Schedule 502 to update the Contract Reference
Obligation ISIN of one CDS contract and the reference entity names of
three CDS contracts that ICC currently clears. The update does not
require any changes to the body of the ICC Rules. In addition, the
update does not require any changes to the ICC risk management
framework.
    Schedule 502 of the ICC Rules is being updated to reflect changes
that are already in place operationally. Namely, on May 7, 2012, Exelon
Corporation became clearing eligible at ICC with a new Contract
Reference Obligation ISIN and new reference entity name. On May 8,
2012, ICC converted all Constellation Energy Group, Inc. trades and
positions to those of Exelon Corporation. On January 16, 2012, Beam,
Inc. became clearing eligible at ICC and on February 1, 2012, ICC
converted all Fortune Brands, Inc. positions to Beam, Inc. positions.
On April 2, 2012, XLIT Ltd. became clearing eligible at ICC and on
April 17, 2012, ICC converted all XL Ltd. trades and positions to XLIT
Ltd. positions. The corresponding updates to Schedule 502 accurately
represent the current operations of ICC and correctly reflect ICC's
cleared activity with respect to the CDS contracts at issue.
    Currently, Schedule 502 does not reflect the industry's changes to
the standard Contract Reference Obligation ISIN for Exelon Corporation
or the entity names for Exelon Corporation, Beam Inc., and XLIT Ltd.
Despite the reference entity names and Contract Reference Obligation
ISIN in current Schedule 502, ICC has been clearing CDS contracts using
the new industry standard Contract Reference Obligation ISIN and
reference entity names as of the above dates. Current Schedule 502 does
not accurately represent the operations of ICC. The underlying
contracts have not changed and, notwithstanding the standard Contract
Reference Obligation ISIN change and name changes of the reference
entity, ICC continues to clear the same contract today that it cleared
prior to the standard Contract Reference Obligation ISIN change and
reference entity name changes.
    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) \6\ of the Act requires, among other things,
that the rules of a clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt
and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and,
to the extent applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and
transactions. ICC believes that the proposed rule update is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to ICC, in particular to Section 17A(b)(3)(F),
because the update will facilitate the prompt and accurate settlement
of securities transactions and assure the safeguarding of securities
and funds associated with securities transactions which are in the
custody or control of ICC or for which it is responsible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICC does not believe the proposed rule change would have any
impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

(C) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the
Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by ICC.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \8\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICC-2012-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

    Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2012-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use

only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICC and on ICC's
Web site at https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/regulatory_filings/ICEClearCredit_032712.pdf.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICC-2012-09
and should be submitted on or before July 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14339 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65390-65391]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25693]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0566; FRL-10002-29-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Water
Quality Certification Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), Water Quality Certification
Regulations (EPA ICR No. 2603.03, OMB Control No. 2040-0295), to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Before doing so, EPA
is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed revision
of an ICR (OMB Control No. 2040-0295), which is currently approved
through February 29, 2020. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-
2019-0566, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method) or
by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Kasparek, Oceans, Wetlands, and
Communities Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, (MC
4504T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., electronic submission of responses.

The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another Federal
Register notice to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR describes the cost and burden associated with 40
CFR 121, the regulations that implement Clean Water Act (CWA) section
401. Under section 401, a federal agency may not issue a permit or
license that may result in any discharge into waters of the United
States unless the certifying authority where the discharge would
originate issues a section 401 water quality certification verifying
that the discharge will comply with certain water quality requirements
or waives the certification requirement. CWA section 401 requires
project proponents to submit project specific information to certifying
authorities. Certifying authorities may act on project specific
information by either granting, granting with conditions, denying, or
waiving section 401 certification. CWA section 401 requires certifying
authorities to submit information to the relevant federal licensing or
permitting agency to indicate the action taken on a request for
certification. The EPA is also responsible for coordinating input from
certain neighboring or downstream states and tribes affected by a
discharge from a federally licensed or permitted project under section
401(a)(2). Information collected directly collected by the EPA under
section 401 in support of the section 402 permit program is already
captured under an existing ICR (OMB Control Number 2040-0004, EPA ICR
Number 0229.22) and therefore is not included in this analysis.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Applicants for certain federal
licenses and permits; certifying authorities including states,
territories, and authorized tribes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Project Proponents: required to
obtain or retain a benefit (33 U.S.C. 1341).
    Certifying Authorities: Not mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 41,119 (total).
    Frequency of response: Per Federal Application.
    Total estimated burden: 328,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $18,000,000 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a change in the total estimated
respondent burden, number of respondents, and number of responses
compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB (OMB Control No. 2040-
0295) due to refinements in how the estimates are calculated. See the
Supporting Statement in the docket for more information on the changes
in estimates.

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
John Goodin,
Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-25693 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37173-37174]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15175]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0154; Airspace Docket No. 14-ACE-1]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Steele, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Steele, MO.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Steele Municipal
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, April 30, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On April 22, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the Steele, MO, area, creating controlled airspace at Steele Municipal
Airport (79 FR 22457) Docket No. FAA-2014-0154. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting

written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Steele Municipal Airport,
Steele, MO, for new standard instrument approach procedures developed
at the airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Steele Municipal Airport,
Steele, MO.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Steele, MO [New]

Steele Municipal Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]05'44'' N., long. 089[deg]51'34'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Steele Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 17, 2014.
Kent M. Wheeler,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-15175 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P