[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 17 (Friday, January 25, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5281-5288]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01318]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9723-8]

40 CFR Parts 124 and 270

Revisions to Procedural Rules To Clarify Practices and Procedures
Applicable in Permit Appeals Pending Before the Environmental Appeals
Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule revises existing procedures for appeals from RCRA,
UIC, NPDES, PSD or other final permit decisions that are filed with the
Environmental Appeals Board in an effort to simplify and make more
efficient the review process, particularly in appeals from permits
issued under new source review provisions. Most significantly, the
changes reconcile current provisions of the regulation governing
appeals, which over time has proven to be somewhat confusing and
redundant. The changes will bring the regulation more fully in line
with current practice. Under the current rule, a Petitioner is required
to file a substantive petition for review demonstrating that review is
warranted. The Environmental Appeals Board considers that substantive
petition, as well as any briefs filed in response to the petition, to
determine whether to grant review. If review is granted, the current
rule contemplates that a second substantive round of briefing is begun
and another substantive review process occurs. In practice, however,
the Board has determined that a second round of briefing generally is
unnecessary because in nearly all cases, a decision on the merits can
be made based on the substantive briefs already filed. The changes to
the rule clarify to practitioners that substantive briefing must be
submitted at the outset of the appeal and that one substantive review
will occur. Additional briefing may be ordered when the Board
determines it warranted. A number of additional provisions governing
procedure are also added to the rule to reflect existing practices that
are currently guided by standing orders of the Environmental Appeals
Board and its Practice Manual. Revising the regulation to reflect
current practice will provide clarity to practitioners before the
Board, which will in turn make the appeals process more efficient by
avoiding unnecessary filings and Board orders.

DATES: This final rule will become effective on March 26, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eurika Durr, Clerk of the Board, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board (EAB),
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For more information regarding this rule,
please visit http://www.epa.gov/eab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and has
particular applicability to anyone who seeks review of a RCRA, UIC,
NPDES, PSD or other final permit decision under 40 CFR Sec.  124.19 by
the Environmental Appeals Board. Because this action may apply to
everyone, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to the particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

 B. How can I get additional information?

    Electronic copies of this document and certain other related
documents are available at http://www.epa.gov/eab/.

C. When will this rule become effective?

    This rule will become effective sixty days after the date of
publication in the Federal Register. The sixty days between the date of
publication and the effective date will allow the Board to notify
current practitioners of the changes, modify its procedural guidance
documents and take other measures to implement the rule as appropriate.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    The existing rule governing appeals of RCRA, UIC, NPDES, PSD and
other applicable final permit decisions is potentially redundant and
cumbersome, lacks detailed procedures that would help simplify the
permit review process, and is not fully reflective of the Environmental
Appeals Board's current practice. EPA is amending the language of the
rule to more fully reflect current practice, which is bound by the
current language but also guided in large part by Board precedent,
Board standing orders, and the Board's Practice Manual.
    The amendments to the rule clarify review procedures for
practitioners before the Environmental Appeals Board, which will
simplify and make

more efficient the review process in all permit appeals filed with the
Board under this section, particularly in PSD and other new source
appeals. As explained in more detail below, the changes:
    [dec221] Clarify that substantive briefing occurs at the outset of
the appeal followed by one substantive review process and that a second
round of substantive briefs will not occur as a matter of course,
allowing the regulation to more fully reflect current Board practice;
and
    [dec221] Add provisions to the rule governing procedures that are
currently guided by standing orders of the Environmental Appeals Board
and the Board's Practice Manual.
1. Full Briefing During Initial Review by the Environmental Appeals
Board
    In most permit appeals, the Environmental Appeals Board bases its
final decision on the petition(s) filed, the response(s) to the
petition, and on the administrative record of the permit decision.
Although the current rule provides for a second substantive briefing
and review period following a decision to ``grant review,'' a large
majority of the time the Board concludes that additional briefing is
unnecessary to determine whether to affirm a permit decision or remand
a permit decision to the permitting agency for further consideration.
Paragraph (a) of the current rule requires Petitioners to demonstrate
that review is warranted in the petition for review. Board precedent,
affirmed by the Federal Courts of Appeal, interprets this provision in
the rule to require Petitioners to demonstrate substantively why the
permit decision warrants review. See, e.g., In re Teck Alaska, Inc.,
NPDES Appeal No. 10-04, at 7-11 (EAB Nov. 18, 2010) (Order Denying
Review), review denied, Native Vill. of Kivalina IRA Council v. EPA,
687 F.3d 1216, 1221 (9th Cir. 2012); In re City of Pittsfield, NPDES
Appeal No. 08-19, at 7, 11-12 (EAB Mar. 4, 2009) (Order Denying
Review), review denied, 614 F.3d 7, 11-13 (1st Cir. 2010); In re
Wastewater Treatment Facility of Union Twp., NPDES Appeal Nos. 00-26 &
00-28, at 9-13 (EAB Jan. 23, 2001) (Order Denying Petitions for
Review), review denied, Mich. Dep't Envtl. Quality v. EPA, 318 F.3d
705, 708 (6th Cir. 2003); see also In re Peabody W. Coal Co., 12 E.A.D.
22, 33, 51-53 (EAB 2005).
    In cases where the Board finds no error based on its review of the
petition, the responses to the petition, and the administrative record,
the Board will typically deny review. In cases where the Board finds
error based on its initial review, the Board often determines that
additional briefing on appeal would not shed further light on the
issues and, therefore, determines that a direct remand without
additional submissions would be more efficient and appropriate. See In
re DC Water and Sewer Auth., 13 E.A.D. 714, n.82 (EAB 2008) (remanding
after initial review and explaining that ``[a]lthough 40 CFR Sec.
124.19(c) contemplates that additional briefing typically will be
submitted upon a grant of review, a direct remand without additional
submissions is appropriate where, as here, it does not appear as though
further briefs on appeal would shed light on the issues'' to be
addressed on remand); see also, e.g., In re Amerada Hess, 12 E.A.D. 1,
21 n.39 (EAB 2005); In re Rohm and Haas Co., 9 E.A.D. 499, 514 n.24
(EAB 2000); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121, 176 n.73 (EAB
1999); In re Beckman Prod. Servs., 8 E.A.D. 302, 314 n.16 (EAB 1999);
In re Ash Grove Cement Co., 7 E.A.D. 387, 433 n. 40 (EAB 1997); In re
Chem. Waste Mgmt. of Ind., 6 E.A.D. 144, 173 n.28 (EAB 1995); In re
Reinkiewicz, 4 E.A.D. 61, 67 n.5 (EAB 1992). The utilization of a
direct remand, without further briefing, has been a practice of the
Agency since before the Board was created. See In re Chem. Waste Mgmt,
Inc., 2 E.A.D. 575, 577 (Adm'r 1988).
    The Environmental Appeals Board's long-standing practice of issuing
a direct remand in matters based on errors found in its initial review
of a petition stands in contrast to the provision in 40 CFR 124.19(c)
that provides for a second round of briefing following a grant of
review. Notwithstanding the requirement to provide a substantive
demonstration that review is warranted in the petition for review, the
existing regulation contemplates that following the Board's grant of
review, public notice of the grant of review must be provided and a
briefing schedule established for the appeal, including an invitation
to any interested person to file an amicus brief.
    Today's revision of Sec.  124.19 simplifies the review process and
promotes judicial economy by clarifying that one complete round of
briefing will occur at the outset of the appeal and by removing the
language that refers to a second round of briefing once review has been
granted. As always, any person who filed comments on the draft permit
or participated in a public hearing on the draft permit may file a
petition for review. With today's revision of the rule, any interested
person may file an amicus brief in any permit appeal pending before the
Board under part 124 during the initial briefing period within the
timeframe and in the manner prescribed by the rule. Notice of all
docketed appeals pending before the Environmental Appeals Board is
available to the public on the Board's Web site: www.epa.gov/eab.
Nothing in this revision to the rule prevents the Board from ordering
additional briefing after the first round in any matter where the Board
determines that additional briefing may assist the Board in its
deliberations.
    Several provisions in parts 124 and 270 reference the granting of
review by the Environmental Appeals Board and use the second round of
briefing and permit review as a trigger or deadline for other agency
action. As such, these provisions are being revised to reflect the
clarification that all substantive briefing occurs at the outset of the
appeal. Specifically, before today, Sec.  124.19 authorized the
Regional Administrator to unilaterally withdraw a permit and prepare a
new draft permit at any time prior to the Board's grant of review under
what was Sec.  124.19(c). The provision served to prevent unilateral
withdrawal of a permit by the Region after the Environmental Appeals
Board had begun substantive consideration of an appeal. This rule
revises Sec.  124.19 to allow the Regional Administrator to
unilaterally withdraw the permit at any time prior to 30 days after the
Regional Administrator files its response to the petition under
paragraph (b) of this section. This revision will continue to ensure
that unilateral withdrawal of a permit will occur before the Board has
devoted significant resources to the substantive consideration of an
appeal. Nothing in this regulation prevents the Region from seeking to
withdraw the permit by motion at any time.
    Additionally Sec.  270.42(b)(6)(iii) provides for the automatic
authorization of certain hazardous waste permit modifications where the
Director fails to make a determination on a modification request within
the allotted time. That automatic authorization is appealable to the
Environmental Appeals Board under Sec.  124.19, as provided in Sec.
270.42(f)(3). The provision authorizing the appeal also provides that
``the permittee may continue to conduct the activities pursuant to the
automatic authorization until the appeal has been granted pursuant to
Sec.  124.19(c), notwithstanding the provisions of Sec.  124.15(b).''
Because today's rule modifies the appeal procedures to eliminate a
second round of substantive review after the grant of review, Sec.
270.42((f)(3) must be modified as well. Accordingly, the provision is
modified to allow the permittee to conduct activities pursuant to
automatic authorization until a final

determination, if any, is made by the Environmental Appeals Board to
grant review and remand the permit. The revision is consistent with the
original provision in that it allows the permittee to continue to
conduct activities described in the modification request pursuant to
automatic authorization until the Board determines review is warranted.
    Section 270.155(a) authorizes appeals to the Environmental Appeals
Board from decisions to approve or deny a remedial action plan (RAP)
permit under RCRA. That provision historically has required that
specific notice be given to the public of the Environmental Appeals
Board's grant of review of any RAP decision, and an opportunity
provided for any interested person to participate in the second
(substantive review) stage of the appeal. Because today's revision of
Sec.  124.19 clarifies that the substantive review of a petition is
based on one complete round of briefing at the outset of the appeal,
the rule also clarifies that all interested persons in any appeal under
Sec.  124.19, including those appeals authorized under Sec.  270.155,
may file an amicus brief during the initial briefing period within the
timeframe and in the manner prescribed by the rule. Notice of a final
decision to approve or deny a RAP is provided under Sec.  270.150, and
such notice includes the procedures for appealing the decision under
Sec.  270.155. Additionally, as provided above, notice of all docketed
appeals pending before the Environmental Appeals Board is available to
the public on the Board's Web site: www.epa.gov/eab. Thus, the
provision in Sec.  270.155(a), which provides for specific notice of
the second stage of the appeal process that is being eliminated, is no
longer necessary and is also being deleted.
2. Procedural Additions to the Rule
    Practitioners before the Environmental Appeals Board in permit
appeals currently are guided by Board precedent, standing orders of the
Board, and the Board's Practice Manual. Current regulations do not
provide the parameters for filing documents before the Board, such as
where to file, how to file, when to file, as well as any content
requirements or limits to what is filed. The revisions adopted today
are intended to codify current procedural practices, clarify existing
review procedures, and simplify the permit review process.
Practitioners before the Board will benefit from the greater clarity
and efficiency in these procedural rules, as will the Agency. Specific
changes are summarized below.
    In matters where the permit applicant is not the petitioner in an
appeal, the petitioner must notify the permit applicant when a petition
is filed, and the permit applicant's deadline for filing a response is
specified in the regulation. This change eliminates the current
practice that typically involves the permit applicant filing a motion
to participate in the appeal, which the Board typically grants,
followed by filing a substantive brief according to the Board's
briefing schedule. Allowing participation of the permit applicant by
rule and specifying a response brief deadline will streamline and make
more efficient the briefing process for permit applicants.
    When a petition is filed, the Environmental Appeals Board typically
sends a letter to the permit issuer requesting a response to the
petition and requiring the permit issuer to submit its response and a
certified index to the administrative record by a date certain. This
rule adds procedures that require a petitioner to serve notice of the
petition on the permit issuer when the petition is filed. The rule also
requires the permit issuer to submit a response to the petition, as
well as a certified index of the administrative record and relevant
portions of the record, by a date certain. This eliminates the need for
the Board to notify the permit issuer and facilitates an earlier
response deadline, making the process more efficient for the permit
issuer and the Board.
    The changes to the rule also impose briefing procedures and
deadlines for interested state or tribal authorities that are located
where the permitted facility or site is located or proposed to be
located (if that authority is not the permit issuer), as well as for
any person(s) interested in filing an amicus brief. Again, the briefing
deadlines and explicit authorization to file are intended to streamline
and make more efficient the appeal process, by removing the need to
request permission from the Board to participate, and eliminating the
corresponding additional time needed to grant participation and to
impose briefing schedules later in the process.
    Procedures for PSD and other new source review appeals are
contained in the Environmental Appeals Board's April 19, 2011, standing
order. See Order Governing Petitions for Review of Clean Air Act New
Source Review Permits (EAB Apr. 19, 2011), available at www.epa.gov/eab. These procedures were adopted ``to facilitate [the] expeditious
resolution of NSR appeals, while simultaneously giving fair
consideration to the issues raised in any given matter[.]'' Id. at 2.
In effect, the procedures simplify and make more efficient the review
process in PSD and other new source appeals (including OCS appeals) by
imposing certain presumptions, tighter deadlines, briefing limitations,
and other measures. Today's rule incorporates many of these procedures
into the regulation.
    To date, practitioners before the Environmental Appeals Board have
had little guidance on the form and content of submissions to the
Board. The revised rule adds provisions imposing procedural rules
governing the content and form of filings for briefs and motions
practice. This will improve the quality and consistency of filings
before the Board, which will also contribute to greater efficiency.
    The revised rule clarifies existing filing requirements and
procedures that are currently found in the Board's standing orders and
in the Board's Practice Manual, all of which may be found on the
Board's Web site. These include procedures for both filing paper
documents and for electronic filing. The procedures also address the
service of notice on participants of documents filed, including the
availability of electronic service. This portion of the rule will also
provide greater clarity and efficiency to the appeals process.
    The revised rule also adds a provision clarifying the Board's
inherent authority to manage its docket in the most meaningful and
efficient manner possible, including the ability to impose procedural
sanctions for failure to comply with Board orders and rules. The
language clarifying this authority is consistent with the express
language found in regulations pertaining to enforcement appeals before
the Environmental Appeals Board. See 22 CFR Sec.  22.4(a)(2). The
language is also consistent with Board precedent. See In re Peabody
Western Coal Co., CAA Appeal No. 10-01 (EAB Aug. 13, 2010) (Order
Granting Motion for Voluntary Remand) (articulating Board's inherent
authority to rule on motions and fill other ``gaps'' in its procedural
rules); see also, e.g., In re MGP Ingredients of Illinois, Inc., PSD
Appeal No. 09-03 (EAB Jan. 8, 2010) (Order Imposing Sanctions, Setting
Final Deadline for Filing Response and Scheduling Status Conference)
(imposing page-limit sanction against permit issuer and ordering
appearance at a status conference in response to ``systematic failure
to timely assemble the administrative record, provide representation
and defend a permit issued''); In re Desert Rock Energy Co., LLC, PSD
Appeal Nos. 08-03 to 08-06 (EAB May 21, 2009) (Order Denying Motion to
Participate) (initially denying

amici's motion to participate filed two months after the deadline for
submission without explanation or justification). Further support for
the Board's inherent authority to manage its docket may be found in
general and well-established principles of administrative law. See
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense
Council, 435 U.S. 519, 543-44 (1978) (``Absent constitutional
constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the administrative
agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure to
pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their
multitudinous duties.''); see also American Farm Lines v. Black Ball
Freight Service, 397 U.S. 532, 539 (1970) (explaining that it is
``always within the discretion of * * * an administrative agency to
relax or modify its procedural rules adopted for the orderly
transaction of business before it when in a given case the ends of
justice require it.''). The Board's inherent authority to manage its
docket includes the authority to relax or suspend, for good cause, the
procedural requirements prescribed by these rules or Board order. See
In re Circle T Feedlot, Inc., NPDES Appeals Nos. 09-02 & 09-03, slip op
at 11 (EAB Jun. 7, 2010).
    Finally, current regulations allow a petitioner to challenge ``any
condition of a permit decision.'' 40 CFR 124.19(a). The Environmental
Appeals Board historically and consistently has construed ``any
condition of the permit decision'' to include not only specific permit
conditions, but also the permit decision in its entirety, whether based
on alleged substantive or procedural defects. See, e.g., In re Circle T
Feedlot, Inc., NPDES Appeal Nos. 09-02 & 09-03, slip op. at 5 n.l (EAB
June 7, 2010), 14 E.A.D. ------ (citations omitted) (challenging the
permit in its entirety based on the permit issuer's alleged lack of
authority to issue the permit); In re Russell City Energy Ctr., PSD
Appeal No. 08-01, slip op. at 21-25 (EAB July 29, 2008), 14 E.A.D. ----
-- (considering adequacy of public notice); In re Weber, #4-8, 11
E.A.D. 241, 245 (EAB 2003) (considering timeliness of response to
comments); In re Indeck-Elwood, LLC, 13 E.A.D. 126, 189 (EAB 2006)
(considering, among other things, the alleged failure to include an
emission limit for fluoride). The Board's extension of review to
include challenges broader than ones specific to a permit condition is
consistent with the language in 40 CFR 124.15(a), which defines a
permit decision as a ``final decision to issue, deny, modify, revoke
and reissue, or terminate a permit.'' A petitioner challenging the
decision to deny a permit, for example, could not identify specific
permit ``conditions'' being challenged; rather, such petitioner would
challenge the overall decision to deny the permit. Thus, the Board has
reviewed permit decisions where the petitioner did not challenge a
specific permit condition, but instead challenged the permit as a
whole.
    On the other hand, the Environmental Appeals Board has also denied
review of permit decisions where the petition for review failed to
identify any specific permit condition being challenged. Such denial of
review has consistently been based on a petitioner's failure to
identify--with any specificity--any error of fact or law warranting
review. See, e.g., In re LCP Chemicals--New York, 4 EAD 661, 664-65
(EAB 1993) (denying review of certain issues for which petitioner had
failed to identify specific permit conditions and stating that,
``[a]bsent any references to the specific permit conditions at issue,
and a discussion as to why the Region's decision to impose those
conditions warrants review, this Board has no basis for granting
review.'') (emphasis added); In re Envotech, L.P., 6 EAD 260, 269 (EAB
1996) (dismissing a petition that raised the issue of strict liability
but did not explain what permit condition was implicated by the
doctrine of strict liability or how the doctrine of strict liability
established that the region erred in granting the permit); see also,
e.g., In re Peabody W. Coal Co., NPDES Appeal Nos. 10-15 & 10-16, slip
op. at 32 n.36 (EAB Aug. 31, 2011) (dismissing several issues as
``vague'' and ``unsubstantiated'' where it was unclear how the issues
raised related to any conditions of the permit that petitioner was
attempting to challenge (citing In re City of Attleboro, NPDES Appeal
No. 08-08, slip op. at 61 (EAB Dec. 15, 2009) (explaining that, because
petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that review is warranted,
the Board ``will not entertain vague or unsubstantiated claims'')); In
re City of Moscow, 10 E.A.D. 135, 172 (EAB 2001) (denying review where
petitioner raised vague and unsubstantiated concerns and failed to
point to any clearly erroneous findings of fact or conclusions of law
in the Region's permitting decision or to identify any specific permit
conditions that gave rise to those concerns)).
    Today's revision to the rule therefore clarifies that, consistent
with well-established precedent, petitioners must identify the
contested permit condition or other specific challenge to the permit
decision and clearly set forth, with legal and factual support,
petitioner's contentions for why the permit decision should be
reviewed. This revised language is intended to capture permit
challenges that are within the Environmental Appeals Board's existing
scope of review, but that are not necessarily tied to a specific permit
condition; the revised language is not intended to expand the Board's
existing scope of review. As always, such challenges must demonstrate
that the permit decision is based on a finding of fact or conclusion of
law that is clearly erroneous, or an exercise of discretion or an
important policy consideration that the Environmental Appeals Board
should, in its discretion, review. Additionally, the rule incorporates
the precedential requirement that petitions not only demonstrate that
any issue raised in the petition was raised previously during the
public comment period (to the extent required), but also that the
petition addresses any response by the permit issuer and explain why
that response was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review. See,
e.g., In re Prairie State Generating Co., LLC, 13 E.A.D. 1, 109 (EAB
2006); see also, e.g. In re Pittsfield, NPDES Appeal No. 08-19, slip
op. at 6-9, 11 (EAB Mar. 4, 2009), aff'd, 614 F.3d 7 (1st Cir. 2010).
    In addition, EPA is clarifying a provision in section 124.19
addressing when final agency action occurs following the disposition of
an appeal by the Environmental Appeals Board. Sections 124.15(a) and
124.19(f) of EPA's existing regulations both use the term ``final
permit decision.'' Some parties have interpreted the use of the term
``final permit decision'' in the first sentence of section 124.19(f)(1)
to describe a ``final permit decision'' previously issued under section
124.15 rather than an additional final permit decision issued by the
Regional Administrator after any administrative review proceedings
under section 124.19 are exhausted. EPA generally has applied the
latter reading based on the second sentence of section 124.19(f)(1),
but some EPA offices and members of the public have occasionally
misunderstood the meaning of this provision. In some instances, this
has led to inconsistent actions within EPA and disputes over the
reading of section 124.19(f) between EPA and parties seeking judicial
review of permits issued under Part 124. Thus, in order to avoid
further disputes and ensure consistency across EPA offices that issue
permits under Part 124, we are revising the relevant language in
section 124.19 to make more clear that final agency action does not
occur under 124.19 until the Regional Administrator

issues a subsequent ``final permit decision'' under section 124.19
after administrative review proceedings are exhausted. This revised
text now appears in section 124.19(l)(2).

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is issuing this document under its general rulemaking
authority, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 (5 U.S.C. app.).
    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
Sec.  553(b)(3)(A), provides that ``rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice'' are exempt from notice and comment
requirements. The action the Agency is taking today involves revisions
to the Environmental Appeals Board's procedural rules to clarify
existing practices and procedures that are applicable in permit appeals
filed with the Environmental Appeals Board. These revisions fall under
the exemption provided in APA Sec.  553(b)(3)(A). Accordingly, EPA is
not taking comment on this action.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action involves revisions to the Environmental Appeals Board's
procedural rules to clarify existing practices and procedures that are
applicable in permit appeals filed with the Environmental Appeals
Board. This type of action is exempt from review under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any other
statute, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et. seq.) or sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1999 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not create new binding legal requirements that substantially and
directly affect Tribes under Executive Order 13175 (63 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action does not have significant Federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks,'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This action does not involve technical standards; thus the requirements
of Sec.  12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose
an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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.
Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1)
rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice
that does not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 124

    Administrative Practice and Procedures.

40 CFR Part 270

    Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste.

    Dated: January 14, 2013.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends title 40 parts 124 and 270 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 124--PROCEDURES FOR DECISIONMAKING

0
1. The authority citation for part 124 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
6901 et seq.; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.; Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.

0
2. Section 124.10 is amended by removing paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and
redesignating paragraphs (a)(1)(v) through (a)(1)(vi) as paragraphs
(a)(1)(iv) through paragraphs (a)(1)(v), respectively.

0
3. Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  124.16 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  124.16  Stays of contested permit conditions.

* * * * *
    (b) Stays based on cross effects. (1) A stay may be granted based
on the grounds that an appeal to the Administrator under Sec.  124.19
of one permit may result in changes to another EPA-issued permit only
when each of the permits involved has been appealed to the
Administrator.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 124.19 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  124.19  Appeal of RCRA, UIC, NPDES and PSD Permits.

    (a) Petitioning for review of a permit decision. (1) Initiating an
appeal. Appeal from a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD final permit decision
issued under Sec.  124.15 of this part, or a decision to deny a permit
for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management facility or
unit under Sec.  270.29 of this chapter, is commenced by filing a
petition for review with the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board
within the time prescribed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (2) Who may file? Any person who filed comments on the draft permit
or participated in a public hearing on the draft permit may file a
petition for review as provided in this section. Additionally, any
person who failed to file comments or failed to participate in the
public hearing on the draft permit may petition for administrative
review of any permit conditions set forth in the final permit decision,
but only to the extent that those final permit conditions reflect
changes from the proposed draft permit.
    (3) Filing deadline. A petition for review must be filed with the
Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days after the
Regional Administrator serves notice of the issuance of a RCRA, UIC,
NPDES, or PSD final permit decision under Sec.  124.15 or a decision to
deny a permit for the active life of a RCRA hazardous waste management
facility or unit under Sec.  270.29 of this chapter. A petition is
filed when it is received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals
Board at the address specified for the appropriate method of delivery
as provided in paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
    (4) Petition contents. (i) In addition to meeting the requirements
in paragraph (d), a petition for review must identify the contested
permit condition or other

specific challenge to the permit decision and clearly set forth, with
legal and factual support, petitioner's contentions for why the permit
decision should be reviewed. The petition must demonstrate that each
challenge to the permit decision is based on:
    (A) A finding of fact or conclusion of law that is clearly
erroneous, or
    (B) An exercise of discretion or an important policy consideration
that the Environmental Appeals Board should, in its discretion, review.
    (ii) Petitioners must demonstrate, by providing specific citation
to the administrative record, including the document name and page
number, that each issue being raised in the petition was raised during
the public comment period (including any public hearing) to the extent
required by Sec.  124.13. For each issue raised that was not raised
previously, the petition must explain why such issues were not required
to be raised during the public comment period as provided in Sec.
124.13. Additionally, if the petition raises an issue that the Regional
Administrator addressed in the response to comments document issued
pursuant to Sec.  124.17, then petitioner must provide a citation to
the relevant comment and response and explain why the Regional
Administrator's response to the comment was clearly erroneous or
otherwise warrants review.
    (b) Response(s) to a petition for review. (1) In a PSD or other new
source permit appeal, the Regional Administrator must file a response
to the petition for review, a certified index of the administrative
record, and the relevant portions of the administrative record within
21 days after the filing of the petition.
    (2) In all other permit appeals under this section, the Regional
Administrator must file a response to the petition, a certified index
of the administrative record, and the relevant portions of the
administrative record within 30 days after the filing of a petition.
    (3) A permit applicant who did not file a petition but who wishes
to participate in the appeal process must file a notice of appearance
and a response to the petition. Such documents must be filed by the
deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as
appropriate.
    (4) The State or Tribal authority where the permitted facility or
site is or is proposed to be located (if that authority is not the
permit issuer) must also file a notice of appearance and a response if
it wishes to participate in the appeal. Such response must be filed by
the deadlines provided in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as
appropriate.
    (c) Replies. (1) In PSD and other new source permit appeals, the
Environmental Appeals Board will apply a presumption against the filing
of a reply brief. By motion, petitioner may seek leave of the
Environmental Appeals Board to file a reply to the response, which the
Environmental Appeals Board, in its discretion, may grant. The motion
must be filed simultaneously with the proposed reply within 10 days
after service of the response. In its motion, petitioner must specify
those arguments in the response to which petitioner seeks to reply and
the reasons petitioner believes it is necessary to file a reply to
those arguments. Petitioner may not raise new issues or arguments in
the motion or in the reply.
    (2) In all other permit appeals under this section, petitioner may
file a reply within 15 days after service of the response. Petitioner
may not raise new issues or arguments in the reply.
    (d) Content and form of briefs. (1) Content requirements. All
briefs filed under this section must contain, under appropriate
headings:
    (i) A table of contents, with page references;
    (ii) A table of authorities with references to the pages of the
brief where they are cited;
    (iii) A table of attachments, if required under paragraph (d)(2) of
this section; and
    (iv) A statement of compliance with the word limitation.
    (2) Attachments. Parts of the record to which the parties wish to
direct the Environmental Appeals Board's attention may be appended to
the brief submitted. If the brief includes attachments, a table must be
included that provides the title of each appended document and assigns
a label identifying where it may be found (e.g., Excerpts from the
Response to Comments Document * * * Attachment 1).
    (3) Length. Unless otherwise ordered by the Environmental Appeals
Board, petitions and response briefs may not exceed 14,000 words, and
all other briefs may not exceed 7,000 words. Filers may rely on the
word-processing system used to determine the word count. In lieu of a
word limitation, filers may comply with a 30-page limit for petitions
and response briefs, or a 15-page limit for replies. Headings,
footnotes, and quotations count toward the word limitation. The table
of contents, table of authorities, table of attachments (if any),
statement requesting oral argument (if any), statement of compliance
with the word limitation, and any attachments do not count toward the
word limitation. The Environmental Appeals Board may exclude any
petition, response, or other brief that does not meet word limitations.
Where a party can demonstrate a compelling and documented need to
exceed such limitations, such party must seek advance leave of the
Environmental Appeals Board to file a longer brief. Such requests are
discouraged and will be granted only in unusual circumstances.
    (e) Participation by amicus curiae. Any interested person may file
an amicus brief in any appeal pending before the Environmental Appeals
Board under this section. The deadline for filing such brief is 15 days
after the filing of the response brief, except that amicus briefs in
PSD or other new source permit appeals must be filed within 21 days
after the filing of the petition. Amicus briefs must comply with all
procedural requirements of this section.
    (f) Motions. (1) In general. A request for an order or other relief
must be made by written motion unless these rules prescribe another
form.
    (2) Contents of a motion. A motion must state with particularity
the grounds for the motion, the relief sought, and the legal argument
necessary to support the motion. In advance of filing a motion, parties
must attempt to ascertain whether the other party(ies) concur(s) or
object(s) to the motion and must indicate in the motion the attempt
made and the response obtained.
    (3) Response to motion. Any party may file a response to a motion.
Responses must state with particularity the grounds for opposition and
the legal argument necessary to support the motion. The response must
be filed within 15 days after service of the motion unless the
Environmental Appeals Board shortens or extends the time for response.
    (4) Reply. Any reply to a response filed under paragraph (f)(3) of
this section must be filed within 10 days after service of the
response. A reply must not introduce any new issues or arguments and
may respond only to matters presented in the response.
    (5) Disposition of a motion for a procedural order. The
Environmental Appeals Board may act on a motion for a procedural order
at any time without awaiting a response.
    (g) Timing of motions for extension of time. Parties must file
motions for extensions of time sufficiently in advance of the due date
to allow other

parties to have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the request for
more time and to provide the Environmental Appeals Board with a
reasonable opportunity to issue an order.
    (h) Oral argument. The Environmental Appeals Board may hold oral
argument on its own initiative or at its discretion in response to a
request by one or more of the parties. To request oral argument, a
party must include in its substantive brief a statement explaining why
oral argument should be permitted. The Environmental Appeals Board will
apply a presumption against oral argument in PSD or other new source
permit appeals. The Environmental Appeals Board may, by order,
establish additional procedures governing any oral argument before the
Environmental Appeals Board.
    (i) Filing and service requirements. Documents filed under this
section, including the petition for review, must be filed with the
Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board. A document is filed when it
is received by the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at the
address specified for the appropriate method of delivery as provided in
paragraph (i)(2) of this section.
    (1) Caption and other filing requirements. Every document filed
with the Environmental Appeals Board must specifically identify in the
caption the permit applicant, the permitted facility, and the permit
number. All documents that are filed must be signed by the person
filing the documents or the representative of the person filing the
documents. Each filing must also indicate the signer's name, address,
and telephone number, as well as an email address, and facsimile
number, if any.
    (2) Method of filing. Unless otherwise permitted under these rules,
documents must be filed either electronically, by mail, or by hand
delivery. In addition, a motion or a response to a motion may be
submitted by facsimile if the submission contains no attachments. Upon
filing a motion or response to a motion by facsimile, the sender must,
within one business day, submit the original copy to the Clerk of the
Environmental Appeals Board either electronically, by mail, or by hand-
delivery.
    (i) Electronic filing. Documents that are filed electronically must
be submitted using the Environmental Appeals Board's electronic filing
system, subject to any appropriate conditions and limitations imposed
by order of the Environmental Appeals Board. All documents filed
electronically must include the full name of the person filing below
the signature line. Compliance with Environmental Appeals Board
electronic filing requirements constitutes compliance with applicable
signature requirements.
    (ii) Filing by U.S. Mail. Documents that are sent by U.S. Postal
Service (except by U.S. Express Mail) must be sent to the official
mailing address of the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Mail Code 1103M, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
The original and two copies of each document must be filed. The person
filing the documents must include a cover letter to the Clerk of the
Environmental Appeals Board clearly identifying the documents that are
being submitted, the name of the party on whose behalf the documents
are being submitted, as well as the name of the person filing the
documents, his or her address, telephone number and, if available, fax
number and email address.
    (iii) Filing by hand delivery. Documents delivered by hand or
courier (including deliveries by U.S. Express Mail) must be delivered
to the Clerk of the Environmental Appeals Board at: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Appeals Board, EPA East Building, 1201
Constitution Avenue NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC 20004. The original
and two copies of each document must be filed. The person filing the
documents must include a cover letter to the Clerk of the Environmental
Appeals Board clearly identifying the documents being submitted, the
name of the party on whose behalf the documents are being submitted, as
well as the name of the person filing the documents, his or her
address, telephone number and, if available, fax number and email
address.
    (3) Service requirements. Petitioner must serve the petition for
review on the Regional Administrator and the permit applicant (if the
applicant is not the petitioner). Once an appeal is docketed, every
document filed with the Environmental Appeals Board must be served on
all other parties. Service must be by first class mail, or by any
reliable commercial delivery service. Upon agreement by the parties,
service may be made by facsimile or electronic means.
    (4) Proof of service. A certificate of service must be appended to
each document filed stating the names of persons served, the date and
manner of service, as well as the electronic, mailing, or hand delivery
address, or facsimile number, as appropriate.
    (j) Withdrawal of permit or portions of permit by Regional
Administrator. The Regional Administrator, at any time prior to 30 days
after the Regional Administrator files its response to the petition for
review under paragraph (b) of this section, may, upon notification to
the Environmental Appeals Board and any interested parties, withdraw
the permit and prepare a new draft permit under Sec.  124.6 addressing
the portions so withdrawn. The new draft permit must proceed through
the same process of public comment and opportunity for a public hearing
as would apply to any other draft permit subject to this part. Any
portions of the permit that are not withdrawn and that are not stayed
under Sec.  124.16(a) continue to apply. If the Environmental Appeals
Board has held oral argument, the Regional Administrator may not
unilaterally withdraw the permit, but instead must request that the
Environmental Appeals Board grant a voluntary remand of the permit or
any portion thereof.
    (k) Petitioner request for dismissal of petition. Petitioner, by
motion, may request to have the Environmental Appeals Board dismiss its
appeal. The motion must briefly state the reason for its request.
    (l) Final disposition and judicial review. (1) A petition to the
Environmental Appeals Board under paragraph (a) of this section is,
under 5 U.S.C. 704, a prerequisite to seeking judicial review of the
final agency action.
    (2) For purposes of judicial review under the appropriate Act,
final agency action on a RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD permit occurs when
agency review procedures under this section are exhausted and the
Regional Administrator subsequently issues a final permit decision
under this paragraph. A final permit decision must be issued by the
Regional Administrator:
    (i) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues notice to the
parties that the petition for review has been denied;
    (ii) When the Environmental Appeals Board issues a decision on the
merits of the appeal and the decision does not include a remand of the
proceedings; or
    (iii) Upon the completion of remand proceedings if the proceedings
are remanded, unless the Environmental Appeals Board's remand order
specifically provides that appeal of the remand decision will be
required to exhaust administrative remedies.
    (3) The Regional Administrator must promptly publish notice of any
final agency action regarding a PSD permit in the Federal Register.

    (m) Motions for reconsideration or clarification. Motions to
reconsider or clarify any final disposition of the Environmental
Appeals Board must be filed within 10 days after service of that order.
Motions for reconsideration must set forth the matters claimed to have
been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Motions
for clarification must set forth with specificity the portion of the
decision for which clarification is being sought and the reason
clarification is necessary. Motions for reconsideration or
clarification under this provision must be directed to, and decided by,
the Environmental Appeals Board. Motions for reconsideration or
clarification directed to the Administrator, rather than the
Environmental Appeals Board, will not be considered, unless such motion
relates to a matter that the Environmental Appeals Board has referred
to the Administrator pursuant to Sec.  124.2 and for which the
Administrator has issued the final order. A motion for reconsideration
or clarification does not stay the effective date of the final order
unless the Environmental Appeals Board specifically so orders.
    (n) Board authority. In exercising its duties and responsibilities
under this part, the Environmental Appeals Board may do all acts and
take all measures necessary for the efficient, fair, and impartial
adjudication of issues arising in an appeal under this part including,
but not limited to, imposing procedural sanctions against a party who,
without adequate justification, fails or refuses to comply with this
part or an order of the Environmental Appeals Board. Such sanctions may
include drawing adverse inferences against a party, striking a party's
pleadings or other submissions from the record, and denying any or all
relief sought by the party in the proceeding. Additionally, for good
cause, the Board may relax or suspend the filing requirements
prescribed by these rules or Board order.
    (o) General NPDES permits. (1) Persons affected by an NPDES general
permit may not file a petition under this section or otherwise
challenge the conditions of a general permit in further Agency
proceedings. Instead, they may do either of the following:
    (i) Challenge the general permit by filing an action in court; or
    (ii) Apply for an individual NPDES permit under Sec.  122.21 as
authorized in Sec.  122.28 of this chapter and may then petition the
Environmental Appeals Board to review the individual permit as provided
by this section.
    (2) As provided in Sec.  122.28(b)(3) of this chapter, any
interested person may also petition the Director to require an
individual NPDES permit for any discharger eligible for authorization
to discharge under an NPDES general permit.
    (p) The Environmental Appeals Board also may decide on its own
initiative to review any condition of any RCRA, UIC, NPDES, or PSD
permit decision issued under this part for which review is available
under paragraph (a) of this section. The Environmental Appeals Board
must act under this paragraph within 30 days of the service date of
notice of the Regional Administrator's action.

0
5. Paragraph (b)(1) of Sec.  124.60 is amended by removing the
reference to ``Sec.  124.19(f)'' in the first sentence and adding in
its place ``Sec.  124.19(k)(2)''.

PART 270--EPA ADMINISTERED PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PERMIT PROGRAM

0
6. The authority citation for part 270 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912, 6924, 6925, 6927, 6939, and
6974.

0
7. Paragraph (f)(3) of Sec.  270.42 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  270.42  Permit modification at the request of permittee.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) An automatic authorization that goes into effect under
paragraph (b)(6)(iii) or (v) of this section may be appealed under the
permit appeal procedures of 40 CFR 124.19; however, the permittee may
continue to conduct the activities pursuant to the automatic
authorization unless and until a final determination is made by the
Environmental Appeals Board to grant review and remand the permit
decision.
* * * * *

0
8. Paragraph (a) of 270.155 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  270.155  May the decision to approve or deny my RAP application
be administratively appealed?

    (a) Any commenter on the draft RAP or notice of intent to deny, or
any participant in any public hearing(s) on the draft RAP, may appeal
the Director's decision to approve or deny your RAP application to
EPA's Environmental Appeals Board under Sec.  124.19 of this chapter.
Any person who did not file comments, or did not participate in any
public hearing(s) on the draft RAP, may petition for administrative
review only to the extent of the changes from the draft to the final
RAP decision. Appeals of RAPs may be made to the same extent as for
final permit decisions under Sec.  124.15 of this chapter (or a
decision under Sec.  270.29 to deny a permit for the active life of a
RCRA hazardous waste management facility or unit).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-01318 Filed 1-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS,

PC Code: 129016 DPBarcode: 301361 May 19, 2004 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Drinking Water Assessment for Flumetsulam for Uses on Field Corn and Soybeans FROM: James Lin, Environmental Engineer Stephanie Syslo, RAPL Environmental Risk Branch III Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

THRU: Ben Smith, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch III Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

TO: Diana Locke Health and Effects Division ( 7509C) and Daniel Helfgott Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

This memo provides the estimated drinking water concentrations from surface water and ground water sources for assisting Health and Effects Division in determining the potential risk to human health. The drinking water assessment is based solely on model estimated exposure concentrations in surface water and ground water.

Flumetsulam is a selective herbicide for use to control broadleaf weeds in soybeans and field corn. It belongs to the triazolopyrimidine chemical family. The physical chemical properties of flumetsulam are included as Attachment 1. The mode of action is similar to the sulfonylurea herbicides, which are ALS ( Acetolactate synthase) inhibitors. Flumetsulam can be applied alone, such as in Python ® or Broadstrike ® , or applied in formulation with other active ingredients, such as in Hornet ® ( flumetsulam + clopyralid), Accent Gold ® ( flumetsulam + clopyralid + 2 Nicosulfuron), Broadstrike + Dual ® ( flumetsulam + metolachlor), Broadstrike + Treflan ® ( flumetsulam + trifluralin) and others. Since only flumetsulam will be considered in this drinking water assessment, the maximum allowable application rate for flumetsulam alone of 0.07 lb a. i./ acre will be used to simulate corn and soybeans uses . Both aerial and ground application are allowed in the labels. The exposure concentrations of drinking water were estimated for aerial applications, as drift from aerial applications result in higher exposure concentrations in surface water than ground applications.

The estimated drinking water concentrations of flumetsulam in surface water are summarized in Table 1. Among EFED's standard crop scenarios, there are nine scenarios for corn and only one for soybeans. The Mississippi corn scenario predicts the highest 1 in 10 year peak concentrations of 2.03

g/ L, whereas the North Dakota corn scenario gives the highest 1 in 10 annual mean of 0.59

g/ L, and overall annual mean of 0.34

/ L. Table 2 summarizes the estimated drinking water concentrations of flumetsulam in ground water. Both acute and chronic estimates are 0.823

g/ L.

Table 1. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Flumetsulam from Surface Water Sources. Simulation based on aerial application and the water values are adjusted with percent crop area factor ( 0.46 for corn and 0.41 for soybeans). Concentrations are in

g/ L ( ppb)

Agricultural Commodity/ State 1 in 10 yr Peak 1 in 10 yr Annual Mean Overall Annual Mean Value Corn / California 0.59 0.34 0.19 Corn / Illinois 1.01 0.30 0.22 Corn / Mississippi 2.03 0.46 0.23 Corn / East North Carolina 0.96 0.30 0.16 Corn / West North Carolina 0.90 0.23 0.12 Corn / North Dakota 1.22 0.59 0.34 Corn / Ohio 0.85 0.29 0.17 Corn / Pennsylvania 1.15 0.48 0.28 Corn / Texas 1.16 0.28 0.13 Soybeans / Mississippi 1.03 0.22 0.14 3 Table 2. Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations of Flumetsulam from Ground Water Sources. Concentrations are in

g/ L ( ppb)

Acute 0.823 Chronic 0.823 Models, Scenarios, and Input Parameters Used Estimate Concentrations of Flumetsulam The estimated drinking water concentrations from surface water sources were calculated using Tier II PRZM ( Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS ( Exposure Analysis Modeling System). PRZM is used to simulate pesticide transport as a result of runoff and erosion from an agricultural field and EXAMS estimates environmental fate and transport of pesticides in surface water and using the linkage program shell  PE4v01 ( dated 08/ 13/ 2003), which incorporates the standard scenarios developed by EFED.

Linked crop specific scenarios and meteorological data were used to estimate exposure as a result of uses on field corn and soybeans. Simulations were done using the Index Reservoir scenario in EXAMS, which is a surrogate for a drinking water source drawn from surface water. Weather and agricultural practices are simulated over 30 years so that the 1 in10 year exceedence probability at the site can be estimated. The values generated by the models for drinking water were multiplied by a crop area factor ( PCA), which accounts for the fact that it is unlikely for any basin to be completely planted to an agricultural crop. The maximum PCA for corn is 0.46 and the value for soybeans is 0.41.

Concentrations in ground water were estimated using the Tier I SCI GROW ( Screening Concentration In Ground Water) model.

For further information on these models see,

http:// www. epa. gov/ oppefed1/ models/ water/ index. htm Surface water Nine standard scenarios for corn and one for soybeans were simulated for this drinking water assessment. These scenarios are briefly identified in Table 3. Since flumetsulam applications are simulated as pre plant application, the scenario specific pre planting dates are also included in Table 3. 4 Table 3. Scenarios Used to Estimate Drinking Water Concentrations of Flumetsulam from Surface Water Sources CA  Corn MLRA 17, Stanislaus/ San Joaquin Counties, Metfile: W23232. dvf, Soil: Madera Loam Pre planting Date: 3/ 24 IL  Corn MLRA 108, Mclean County, Metfile: W14923. dvf, Soil: Adair Clay Loam Pre planting Date: 4/ 17 MS  Corn MLRA 134, Southern MS Valley Upland, Metfile: W13893. dvf, Soil: Grenada Silt Loam Pre planting Date: 3/ 28 NC ( east)  Corn MLRA 133, Pitt County, Metfile: W13722. dvf, Soil: Craven Silt Loam Pre planting Date: 3/ 28 NC ( west)  Corn MLRA 130, Henderson County, Metfile: W03812. dvf, Soil: Chewacla Loam Pre planting Date 4/ 11:

ND  Corn MLRA 56, Red River Valley, Pembina County, Metfile: W14914. dvf, Soil: Bearden Silty Clay Loam Pre planting Date: 4/ 20 OH  Corn MLRA 111, Darke and Rickaway Counties, Metfile: W93815. dvf, Soil: Cardington Silt Loam Pre planting Date: 4/ 16 PA  Corn MLRA 148, Lancaster County, Metfile: W14737. dvf, Soil: Hagerstown Silt Loam Pre planting Date: 4/ 05 TX  Corn MLRA 87, Texas Claypan Area, Milam County, Metfile: W13958. dvf, Soil: Axtell Sandy Loam Pre planting Date: 2/ 24 MS  Soybeans MRLA 134, Yazoo County, Metfile: W13893, Soil: Loring Silt Loam Pre planting Date: 3/ 31 Ground Water SCI GROW is a regression model, which is not designed for specific scenario or specific crop.

Input Parameters The appropriate PRZM, EXAMS, and SCI GROW input parameters were selected from the environmental fate data submitted by the petitioner and in accordance with US EPA OPP EFED water model parameter selection guidelines, Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides, Version II, February 28, 2002.

Attachment 2 presents the input parameters used in the PRZM, EXAMS, and SCI GROW 5 models.

Outputs The output files of CA corn and MS soybeans are included in Attachment 3. 6 Attachment 1: Product Chemistry of Flumetsulam Molecular Formula: C 12 H 9 F 2 N 5 O 2 S Molecular Weight: 325.3 Molecular Structure:

Water Solubility: 5650 mg/ L @ pH 7.0 ( 25 oC) 49.1 mg/ L @ pH 2.5 ( 25 oC)

Vapor Pressure: 0.8 x 10 15 mmHg ( 20 oC)

log Kow: 0.21 @ pH 7 pKa: 4.6 7 Attachment 2: Input values of PRZM, EXAMS, and SCIGROW Table 2 1. Input Parameters for PRZM with Flumetsulam ( version 3.12, dated 05/ 07/ 1998)

Variable ( units) Variable Description Input Value Source of Info/ Reference DWRATE( 1) 1 ( day 1) Dissolved phase pesticide decay rate in surface horizon DWRATE( 1) = DSRATE( 1)

The 90th percentile half life value of 98.9 days Aerobic soil metabolism half life values of 23, 60, 93, and 102 days DSRATE( 1) 1 ( day 1) Adsorbed phase pesticide decay rate in surface horizon DWRATE( 2) ( day 1) DWRATE( 3) ( day 1) Dissolved phase pesticide decay rate in 1st, and 2nd subsurface horizon DWRATE( 2) = DSRATE( 2)

The 90th percentile half life value of 98.9 days DWRATE( 3) = DSRATE( 3)

The 90th percentile half life value of 98.9 days same as above DSRATE( 2) ( day 1) DSRATE( 3) ( day 1) Adsorbed phase pesticide decay rate in 1st and 2nd subsurface horizon KD( 1) KD( 2) KD( 3) ( cm3 gm 1 or mL g 1 or L kg 1) Pesticide partition or distribution coefficients for each horizon assume a mean KOC of 27.23 Mobility  Adsorption/ Desorption study ( GLN 163 1) 42, 24, 21, 5, 31, 18, 32, 71, 13, 47, 24, 10, 21, 74, 13, 10, 17, 10, 38, 39, 24, 15 PLDKRT ( day 1) Foliar decay rate not used, since pre plant application were simulated TAPP ( kg ha 1) Application rate 0.07 lb a. i./ ac Product label APPEFF ( decimal) Application efficiency 0.95 for aerial spray input guidance document DRFT Spray drift fraction 0.16 for aerial spray for index reservoir input guidance document 8 Table 2 2. Input Parameters for EXAMS with Flumetsulam ( version 2.98, dated 07/ 18/ 2002)

Variable ( units) Variable Description Input Value Source of Info/ Reference HENRY ( atm m3mole 1) Henry's law constant no input, let EXAMS computes KBACW1 ( cfu/ mL) 1 hour 1 Bacterial biolysis in water column 2 x 98.8 days 2x of soil aerobic metabolism half life KBACS1 ( cfu/ mL) 1 hour 1 Bacterial biolysis in benthic sediment 183 days input as the half life aquatic anaerobic halflife of 183 days KDP ( hour 1) Direct photolysis 0.0 stable KBH ( mole 1 hour 1) KNH ( hour 1) KAH ( mole 1 hour 1) Base hydrolysis Neutral hydrolysis Acid hydrolysis 0.0 0.0 0.0 stable KOC ( mL g 1 O. C.) Partition coefficient for organic carbon 27.23 average value MWT ( g mole 1) Molecular weight 325.3 product chemistry SOL ( mg L 1) Aqueous solubility 5650 product chemistry QUANT Reaction quantum yield for direct photolysis 1.0 VAPR ( torr) Vapor pressure 0.8 x 10 15 product chemistry 9 Table 2 3. Input Parameters for SCIGROW ( version 2.3, dated 07/ 29/ 2003)

Variable Description Input Value Soil half life ( day) mean value of 69.5 days ( 23, 60, 93, and 102 days)

Pesticide partition or distribution coefficients, Koc 5 ( greater than a three fold variation in all values: 42, 24, 21, 5, 31, 18, 32, 71, 13, 47, 24, 10, 21, 74, 13, 10, 17, 10, 38, 39, 24, 15)

Application rate 0.07 lb a. i./ ac 10 Attachment 3 Output files ( only CA corn and MS soybeans are attached)

stored as CAcornF. out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: CAcornC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 16: 32: 58 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w23232. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 04: 22 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 0.4578 0.4529 0.436 0.4001 0.3741 0.189 1962 0.5462 0.5418 0.5225 0.4794 0.4486 0.285 1963 4.089 4.056 3.919 3.625 3.398 1.797 1964 1.29 1.28 1.237 1.141 1.071 0.7738 1965 0.7561 0.7498 0.7327 0.6825 0.6411 0.4028 1966 0.6175 0.6124 0.5901 0.5405 0.5049 0.3028 1967 0.8766 0.8697 0.8443 0.7915 0.7428 0.4186 1968 0.6342 0.6289 0.6064 0.557 0.521 0.3135 1969 1.164 1.154 1.113 1.02 0.9516 0.5264 1970 0.6919 0.6861 0.6621 0.6096 0.5696 0.3532 1971 0.8215 0.8148 0.7862 0.7263 0.6817 0.3866 1972 0.6214 0.6159 0.5935 0.5454 0.5098 0.3042 1973 0.5813 0.5766 0.5561 0.5094 0.4746 0.2732 1974 0.5696 0.5648 0.5455 0.5024 0.4707 0.2722 1975 0.5725 0.568 0.549 0.5068 0.4736 0.2696 1976 0.587 0.5819 0.5609 0.5366 0.5047 0.2867 1977 0.5778 0.5731 0.5527 0.5154 0.4875 0.286 1978 0.5769 0.5719 0.5601 0.5239 0.4911 0.284 1979 0.9037 0.896 0.8639 0.7934 0.7405 0.411 1980 0.7691 0.7629 0.7384 0.6806 0.6387 0.3778 1981 0.7075 0.7018 0.6772 0.6266 0.5869 0.3414 1982 0.7302 0.7241 0.7027 0.6494 0.6121 0.3582 1983 0.6148 0.6097 0.5887 0.5449 0.5111 0.3031 1984 0.5752 0.5701 0.5519 0.5068 0.4722 0.2691 1985 0.6113 0.6064 0.5848 0.5387 0.5039 0.2858 1986 0.6485 0.6428 0.6192 0.5792 0.5482 0.3171 1987 0.5934 0.5884 0.5669 0.5183 0.4829 0.2912 1988 0.8583 0.8505 0.8206 0.7491 0.6953 0.4112 1989 2.174 2.155 2.076 1.901 1.774 0.9552 1990 0.8833 0.8761 0.8445 0.7743 0.7313 0.4893 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 4.089 4.056 3.919 3.625 3.398 1.797 0.0645161290322581 2.174 2.155 2.076 1.901 1.774 0.9552 0.0967741935483871 1.29 1.28 1.237 1.141 1.071 0.7738 0.129032258064516 1.164 1.154 1.113 1.02 0.9516 0.5264 0.161290322580645 0.9037 0.896 0.8639 0.7934 0.7428 0.4893 0.193548387096774 0.8833 0.8761 0.8445 0.7915 0.7405 0.4186 0.225806451612903 0.8766 0.8697 0.8443 0.7743 0.7313 0.4112 0.258064516129032 0.8583 0.8505 0.8206 0.7491 0.6953 0.411 0.290322580645161 0.8215 0.8148 0.7862 0.7263 0.6817 0.4028 0.32258064516129 0.7691 0.7629 0.7384 0.6825 0.6411 0.3866 0.354838709677419 0.7561 0.7498 0.7327 0.6806 0.6387 0.3778 11 0.387096774193548 0.7302 0.7241 0.7027 0.6494 0.6121 0.3582 0.419354838709677 0.7075 0.7018 0.6772 0.6266 0.5869 0.3532 0.451612903225806 0.6919 0.6861 0.6621 0.6096 0.5696 0.3414 0.483870967741936 0.6485 0.6428 0.6192 0.5792 0.5482 0.3171 0.516129032258065 0.6342 0.6289 0.6064 0.557 0.521 0.3135 0.548387096774194 0.6214 0.6159 0.5935 0.5454 0.5111 0.3042 0.580645161290323 0.6175 0.6124 0.5901 0.5449 0.5098 0.3031 0.612903225806452 0.6148 0.6097 0.5887 0.5405 0.5049 0.3028 0.645161290322581 0.6113 0.6064 0.5848 0.5387 0.5047 0.2912 0.67741935483871 0.5934 0.5884 0.5669 0.5366 0.5039 0.2867 0.709677419354839 0.587 0.5819 0.5609 0.5239 0.4911 0.286 0.741935483870968 0.5813 0.5766 0.5601 0.5183 0.4875 0.2858 0.774193548387097 0.5778 0.5731 0.5561 0.5154 0.4829 0.285 0.806451612903226 0.5769 0.5719 0.5527 0.5094 0.4746 0.284 0.838709677419355 0.5752 0.5701 0.5519 0.5068 0.4736 0.2732 0.870967741935484 0.5725 0.568 0.549 0.5068 0.4722 0.2722 0.903225806451613 0.5696 0.5648 0.5455 0.5024 0.4707 0.2696 0.935483870967742 0.5462 0.5418 0.5225 0.4794 0.4486 0.2691 0.967741935483871 0.4578 0.4529 0.436 0.4001 0.3741 0.189 0.1 1.2774 1.2674 1.2246 1.1289 1.05906 0.74906 Average of yearly averages: 0.417833333333333 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: CAcornF Metfile: w23232. dvf PRZM scenario: CAcornC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e 15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/ L Kd Kd mg/ L Koc Koc 27.23 mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 0 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 197.6 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 183 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.8 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 4 cm 12 Application Rate: TAPP 0.0784 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 24 03 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run) 13 stored as MSsoyF. out Chemical: Flumetsulam PRZM environment: MSsoybeanC. txt modified Satday, 12 October 2002 at 17: 07: 44 EXAMS environment: ir298. exv modified Thuday, 29 August 2002 at 15: 34: 12 Metfile: w13893. dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 09: 06: 20 Water segment concentrations ( ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 1.089 1.063 0.9887 0.8333 0.7276 0.2594 1962 0.5705 0.557 0.5045 0.442 0.3824 0.1414 1963 1.457 1.421 1.288 1.047 0.8902 0.3179 1964 2.261 2.206 2.009 1.616 1.372 0.484 1965 1.09 1.063 0.9574 0.7615 0.6498 0.2381 1966 0.5794 0.5708 0.5226 0.4535 0.4064 0.1536 1967 0.5148 0.5021 0.4819 0.4278 0.3735 0.1377 1968 1.067 1.041 0.9441 0.7619 0.6515 0.2291 1969 2.535 2.474 2.269 1.868 1.591 0.5585 1970 2.065 2.014 1.85 1.544 1.32 0.4744 1971 0.6698 0.6538 0.5909 0.5523 0.4848 0.1844 1972 1.476 1.44 1.3 1.072 0.9166 0.3262 1973 0.4791 0.4678 0.4501 0.3827 0.3283 0.1225 1974 0.6927 0.676 0.6186 0.5142 0.4488 0.1626 1975 0.8822 0.8609 0.7795 0.625 0.5442 0.1969 1976 0.4762 0.4646 0.4259 0.4034 0.356 0.1326 1977 1.967 1.918 1.73 1.381 1.169 0.4044 1978 0.6334 0.6177 0.5692 0.4926 0.4304 0.1616 1979 7.226 7.08 6.432 5.161 4.385 1.514 1980 2.089 2.051 1.902 1.534 1.302 0.4864 1981 0.8617 0.8397 0.7673 0.6253 0.5455 0.2028 1982 1.733 1.693 1.569 1.27 1.078 0.3768 1983 1.407 1.375 1.258 1.02 0.875 0.3131 1984 2.594 2.532 2.297 1.853 1.575 0.5509 1985 1.507 1.47 1.326 1.051 0.8864 0.3416 1986 2.208 2.154 1.945 1.552 1.313 0.4627 1987 1.615 1.576 1.424 1.127 0.9502 0.35 1988 1.354 1.322 1.209 0.9781 0.8307 0.2935 1989 0.866 0.8451 0.7638 0.6138 0.5257 0.1901 1990 0.8727 0.8518 0.8058 0.6703 0.5799 0.2077 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 7.226 7.08 6.432 5.161 4.385 1.514 0.0645161290322581 2.594 2.532 2.297 1.868 1.591 0.5585 0.0967741935483871 2.535 2.474 2.269 1.853 1.575 0.5509 0.129032258064516 2.261 2.206 2.009 1.616 1.372 0.4864 0.161290322580645 2.208 2.154 1.945 1.552 1.32 0.484 0.193548387096774 2.089 2.051 1.902 1.544 1.313 0.4744 0.225806451612903 2.065 2.014 1.85 1.534 1.302 0.4627 0.258064516129032 1.967 1.918 1.73 1.381 1.169 0.4044 0.290322580645161 1.733 1.693 1.569 1.27 1.078 0.3768 0.32258064516129 1.615 1.576 1.424 1.127 0.9502 0.35 0.354838709677419 1.507 1.47 1.326 1.072 0.9166 0.3416 0.387096774193548 1.476 1.44 1.3 1.051 0.8902 0.3262 0.419354838709677 1.457 1.421 1.288 1.047 0.8864 0.3179 0.451612903225806 1.407 1.375 1.258 1.02 0.875 0.3131 0.483870967741936 1.354 1.322 1.209 0.9781 0.8307 0.2935 0.516129032258065 1.09 1.063 0.9887 0.8333 0.7276 0.2594 0.548387096774194 1.089 1.063 0.9574 0.7619 0.6515 0.2381 0.580645161290323 1.067 1.041 0.9441 0.7615 0.6498 0.2291 0.612903225806452 0.8822 0.8609 0.8058 0.6703 0.5799 14 0.2077 0.645161290322581 0.8727 0.8518 0.7795 0.6253 0.5455 0.2028 0.67741935483871 0.866 0.8451 0.7673 0.625 0.5442 0.1969 0.709677419354839 0.8617 0.8397 0.7638 0.6138 0.5257 0.1901 0.741935483870968 0.6927 0.676 0.6186 0.5523 0.4848 0.1844 0.774193548387097 0.6698 0.6538 0.5909 0.5142 0.4488 0.1626 0.806451612903226 0.6334 0.6177 0.5692 0.4926 0.4304 0.1616 0.838709677419355 0.5794 0.5708 0.5226 0.4535 0.4064 0.1536 0.870967741935484 0.5705 0.557 0.5045 0.442 0.3824 0.1414 0.903225806451613 0.5148 0.5021 0.4819 0.4278 0.3735 0.1377 0.935483870967742 0.4791 0.4678 0.4501 0.4034 0.356 0.1326 0.967741935483871 0.4762 0.4646 0.4259 0.3827 0.3283 0.1225 0.1 2.5076 2.4472 2.243 1.8293 1.5547 0.54445 Average of yearly averages: 0.332496666666667 Inputs generated by pe4. pl  8 August 2003 Data used for this run: Output File: MSsoyF Metfile: w13893. dvf PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanC. txt EXAMS environment file: ir298. exv Chemical Name: Flumetsulam Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 325.3 g/ mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm m^ 3/ mol Vapor Pressure vapr 0.8e 15 torr Solubility sol 5650 mg/ L Kd Kd mg/ L Koc Koc 27.23 mg/ L Photolysis half life kdp 0 days Half life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 197.6 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 183 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 98.8 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half life Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 4 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.0784 kg/ ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.16 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 31 03 dd/ mm or dd/ mmm or dd mm or dd mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR IR Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total( average of entire run) 15 SCIGROW input/ output screen:


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76319-76321]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-8-000]

Northwest Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kalama Lateral Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Kalama Lateral Project
(Project), which would involve construction and operation of a new
natural gas pipeline and associated facilities by Northwest Pipeline,
LLC (Northwest) in Cowlitz County, Washington. The Commission will use
this EA in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project
is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the Project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on January 10, 2015. You may submit
comments as described in the Public Participation section of this
notice.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    Northwest provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically-asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Northwest plans to construct and operate approximately 3.1 miles of
24-inch- diameter natural gas pipeline to provide 320,000 Dekatherms
per day (Dth/d) of natural gas to a proposed methanol production
facility to be located within the north industrial area of the Port of
Kalama, in Cowlitz County, Washington. The proposed methanol plant is
not under the jurisdiction of the Commission and would not be
constructed or operated by Northwest. However, the environmental impact
of the plant would be part of the state of Washington's State
Environmental Policy Act review process.
    The Kalama Lateral Project would transport natural gas to the
methanol plant from Northwest's existing Ignacio/Sumas mainline in
Cowlitz County, Washington. The project would require new appurtenances
to tie the new pipeline into the existing mainline including a new tap
and valve. Pig launcher facilities \1\ would be installed near the
proposed interconnection with the mainline and at a new meter station
facility constructed within the methanol plant. The new meter station
facility would include standard appurtenances, piping, and buildings
within an approximately 150-foot by 200-foot fenced area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that is inserted into and moves through
the pipeline and is used for cleaning the pipeline, internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The general location of the planned facilities is shown in Appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to page 5 of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the pipeline and aboveground facilities would
disturb approximately 109.4 acres of land. Following construction,
about 19.4 acres would be maintained within permanent easements for
ongoing operation of the pipeline, aboveground facilities, and
permanent access roads. The remaining acreage disturbed during
construction would be restored and allowed to revert to former uses.
These acreage estimates are based on Northwest's general intention to
construct its pipeline using a 100-foot-wide right-of-way and to retain
a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way.

Background

    Under Docket Nos. PF12-2-000 and CP13-18-000, FERC reviewed a
pipeline route that was substantially similar to the one currently
proposed by Northwest. A NOI was issued on June 22, 2012. On May 8,
2013, Northwest formally withdrew its Application of Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity for the Kalama Lateral Pipeline
Project because the project proponent, Veresen U.S. Power Inc.
terminated the Facilities Agreement with Northwest. Stakeholder
comments on the previous docket, if applicable to the Project, should
be resubmitted under Docket CP15-8.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects (OEP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     geology and soils;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;

     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. We will present
our independent analysis of the issues in the EA. The EA will be
available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish and
distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We will
consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to
the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider your
comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 5 of this notice.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating
agency status should follow the instructions for filing comments
provided under the Public Participation section of this notice.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Washington State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit the SHPO's views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ We will define the project-specific
Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the
project develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, and
access roads). Our EA for this project will document our findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Northwest and public
comments. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your
comments and our analysis.
    These issues identified include impacts on geology and soils, land
use, and public safety.
    This preliminary list of issues may be changed based on your
comments and our analysis.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before January 9,
2015.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP15-8-000) with your submission.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for
interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature which is located on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making. If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please
select ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    When the EA is published, copies may be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (Appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the

last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-8). Be sure
you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary
link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: December 11, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29872 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P