[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75727-75729]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26333]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 395

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0096]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Specialized Carriers & Rigging
Association (SC&RA); Application for Exemption; Final Disposition

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; partial grant and partial denial
of application for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Specialized Carriers
& Rigging Association (SC&RA) an exemption from the 30-minute rest
break rule of the Agency's hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for
certain commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. The Agency denies
SC&RA's further request for exemption from the 14-hour driving window
of the HOS rules. All qualifying motor carriers and drivers operating
mobile cranes with a rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons are
exempt from the 30-minute break provision. FMCSA has analyzed the
exemption application and public comments and has determined that the
exemption, subject to the terms and conditions imposed, will achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective November 1, 2016 and expires on
November 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    On December 27, 2011 (76 FR 81133), FMCSA published a final rule
amending its HOS regulations for drivers of property-carrying CMVs. The
rule requires most drivers to take a rest break during the workday.
Generally, if 8 hours have passed since the end of the driver's last
off-duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes, the driver may
not operate a CMV until he or she takes at least 30 minutes off duty
(49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii)). FMCSA did not specify when drivers must take
the 30-minute break. The HOS rules also limit drivers of property-
carrying CMVs to a 14-hour driving window each duty day (49 CFR
395.3(a)(2)). The window begins when the driver comes on duty following
at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. After the 14th consecutive hour
from that point, the driver cannot operate a CMV until he or she
obtains at least 10 consecutive hours off duty. The requirements of the
HOS rules apply to drivers of CMVs and to their motor carrier employers
who direct the drivers to operate the CMVs.
    On June 18, 2015, FMCSA granted SC&RA an exemption from the 30-
minute rest-break requirement for qualifying drivers operating certain
large and heavy vehicles that require an oversize/overweight (OS/OW)
permit issued by State or local government (80 FR 34957). The Agency
granted this exemption for the maximum period of 2 years permitted by
the FMCSRs at that time. On December 4, 2015, the President signed the
``Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act'' (FAST Act)(Pub. L. 114-
94). Section 5206(a)(3) of the FAST Act amended 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) to
give FMCSA the authority to grant exemptions for up to 5 years. In

addition section 5206(b)(2)(A) extended any HOS exemption in effect on
the date of enactment for a period of 5 years from the date it was
issued. While that provision automatically extended SC&RA's June 2015
exemption for drivers of vehicles requiring an oversize/overweight
permit, FMCSA is using its authority under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(2)(1) to
issue the exemption from the 30-minute break requirement for mobile
crane operators for 2 years from the date of this notice.
    SC&RA advises that there are approximately 85,000 trained and
certified mobile crane operators in the United States, and, of these,
approximately 65,000 operate cranes with a lifting capacity over 30
tons. While some of these cranes require a permit due to their size or
weight, others do not. SC&RA seeks an exemption from the 14-hour rule
and the requirement for a 30-minute break for drivers operating mobile
cranes with a rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons. SC&RA
states that the HOS rules create complications because it is difficult
to find suitable parking when crane drivers are required to go off
duty. SC&RA cites data indicating that there is a shortage of parking
places for CMVs in the United States and notes ongoing Federal and
State efforts to address this problem. Parking for cranes is even more
limited because of their size. SC&RA asserts that these two HOS rules
often require crane drivers to stop operating a CMV to avoid violating
their provisions. The result is that cranes are often parked on the
shoulder of public roads. SC&RA states the width of some cranes means
they cannot be parked entirely off the travel lanes, creating a safety
hazard for their own drivers and others.
    SC&RA describes the unpredictable nature of the typical workday of
a crane operator. It lists a variety of variables that can complicate
the scheduling of operations, including delays waiting for the item to
be lifted to arrive at the work site or to be rigged for lifting.
Unexpected inclement weather can also trigger delays. SC&RA asserts
that the primary result is that the workday may be extended
unexpectedly. Thus, timing a crane's movement from the worksite and
onto public roads at the end of the day is highly problematic. It notes
that State and local restrictions limit the hours of the day, and
sometimes the days of the week, that cranes may move on public roads.
In addition, the movement of cranes may require a pilot car, the
display of signs and lights, and even a police escort. Cranes normally
move much slower than the posted speed limit, and are highly
susceptible to weather and traffic conditions.
    SC&RA does not foresee any negative impact to safety from the
requested exemption. It believes that granting the exemption would have
a favorable impact on overall safety by reducing the frequency of
cranes being parked along public roads. It points out that its members
generally drive a crane less than 2 hours a day and have low crash
rates.

Public Comments

    FMCSA published the SC&RA exemption application for comment on
March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14052). The Agency received 13 comments, most
supporting the exemption. These commenters asserted that crane
operators actually drive very little on public roads, and thus are less
likely to suffer from driving fatigue than long-haul CMV drivers.
Commenters also described the typical duty day of crane operators at
the work site, and pointed out that there are substantial periods when
they have to wait for others to complete preparations for the lift.
These commenters also described the relatively short distances cranes
are driven on public roads at the beginning and end of the day.
NationsBuilders Insurance Services, Inc. commented that the drive unit
of a crane generally logs only 60,000 miles in 9 years.
    Commenters opposing the exemption suggest that motor carriers could
avoid or ameliorate their scheduling difficulties by employing a second
crane driver. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) found
the application for exemption fatally deficient because it ``fails to
include any analysis of the safety impacts of the requested
exemption.'' Advocates also stated that SC&RA ignored the requirement
that it ``carefully review the regulation to determine whether there
are any practical alternatives already available'' that would allow it
to conduct its operations and comply with the HOS rules. Advocates also
believes that SC&RA carriers could overcome the numerous variables
affecting these operations by stronger management of their CMV fleets.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated SC&RA's application and the public comments and
has decided to grant an exemption from the 30-minute rule but to deny
an exemption from the 14-hour rule. The Agency believes that the exempt
crane drivers will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to or greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption
[49 CFR 381.305(a)]. The schedules of these CMV drivers are
characterized by daytime hours, low-stress periods of waiting during
the workday, and very limited hours of actual driving on public roads.
In addition, these loads are sometimes escorted by other vehicles and
operate at low speeds.
    The unpredictable workday of a mobile-crane operator, with its
frequent interruptions and down time, reduces the risk of cumulative
fatigue and thus the urgency of a 30-minute break. Providing an
exemption from the break will also reduce the number of situations
where a crane operator has to park at roadside midway through a move
between job sites in order to comply with the 30-minute break rule. The
Agency is concerned with parking shortages, especially for very large
vehicles. It is highly undesirable to have cranes parked on the
shoulders of highways, much less extending into the travel lanes. No
matter how well marked, trucks parked at roadside, especially at night,
are too easily mistaken for moving vehicles and struck at full speed,
with serious consequences.
    However, the Agency is not granting exemption from the 14-hour
rule. The absence of this limit would allow drivers to operate without
any restriction on the length of their duty day. The risk that safety
would deteriorate in the absence of this requirement is high. While we
agree that the 30-minute break rule is unnecessarily restrictive for
operators of large mobile cranes, the 14-hour window is far less
restrictive. It is a critical factor in containing fatigue that might
otherwise develop. The 14-hour rule is a limit that should be built
into the planning of mobile crane operations.
    For these reasons, the Agency grants an exemption from the 30-
minute rest-break requirement, subject to the terms and conditions in
this Federal Register notice, but denies an exemption from the 14-hour
rule.

Terms of the Exemption

    1. All motor carriers and drivers operating mobile cranes with a
rated lifting capacity of greater than 30 tons are exempt from the 30-
minute break requirement of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The lifting
capacity of the crane must be displayed on a manufacturer's
certification plate on the crane or in manufacturer's documentation
carried on the vehicle.
    2. Drivers must have a copy of this exemption document in their
possession while operating under the terms of the exemption. The
exemption document

must be presented to law enforcement officials upon request.
    3. Motor carriers operating under this exemption must have a
``Satisfactory'' safety rating with FMCSA, or be ``Unrated.'' Motor
carriers with ``Conditional'' or ``Unsatisfactory'' FMCSA safety
ratings are prohibited from using this exemption.

Period of the Exemption

    This exemption from the requirements of 49 CFR 395.3(a)(3)(ii) is
granted for the period from 12:01 a.m., November 1, 2016 through 11:59
p.m., November 1, 2018.

Extent of the Exemption

    This exemption is limited to the provisions of 49 CFR
395.3(a)(3)(ii). These motor carriers and drivers must comply with all
other applicable provisions of the FMCSRs.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    Any motor carrier utilizing this exemption must notify FMCSA within
5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving
any of the motor carrier's CMV drivers operating under the terms of
this exemption. The notification must include the following
information:
    a. Name of Exemption: ``SC&RA cranes''
    b. Name of operating motor carrier and USDOT number,
    c. Date of the accident,
    d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    e. Driver's name and license number and State of issuance
    f. Vehicle number and State license plate number,
    g. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    h. Number of fatalities,
    i. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    j. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws
or motor carrier safety regulations, and
    k. The driver's total driving time and total on-duty time prior to
the accident.
    Reports filed under this provision shall be emailed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Termination

    FMCSA believes motor carriers conducting crane operations under
this exemption will continue to maintain their safety record while
operating under this exemption. However, should safety be compromised,
FMCSA will take all steps necessary to protect the public interest,
including revocation or restriction of the exemption. The FMCSA will
immediately revoke or restrict the exemption for failure to comply with
its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: October 20, 2016.
 T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-26333 Filed 10-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


                           Monthly Hotline Report
                                July 1992

RCRA/Superfund/OUST and Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act

The RCRA/Superfund/OUST and Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act Monthly Hotline Report provides valuable OSWER
programmatic information. This bulletin contains excerpts from
the Report's "Questions and Answer" and "Publications" sections.
The full report is available from the U.S. National Technical
Information Service at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For other information,
please contact the RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline at 1-800-424-9346
or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Hotline
at 1-800-424-9346.

EPA Report Number: EPA/530-R-92-014g
NTIS Number: PB92-922407

                        Hotline Questions and Answers

RCRA

1.   Liners and Leak Detection Systems for Hazardous Waste
     Landfills, Surface Impoundments, and Waste Piles

  The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984
created new requirements for both permitted and interim status
hazardous waste land disposal units.  Initially, to satisfy the
requirements outlined in Section 3004(o), EPA promulgated minimum
technological requirements (i.e., double-liners) on July 15, 1985
(50 FR 28702).  EPA subsequently proposed two rules on liners and
leak detection.  On March 28, 1986 (51 FR 10706), and April 17,
1987 (52 FR 12566), EPA proposed amendments to the double liner
and leachate collection system standards for landfills and
surface impoundments.  On May 29, 1987 (52 FR 20218), EPA
proposed leak detection system requirements for landfills,
surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment units.
This notice also proposed to expand the double liner requirement
to include waste piles.  On January 29, 1992 (57 FR 3462), EPA
issued a final rule on liners and leak detection systems
encompassing all the above proposed rules.  How did the January
29, 1992,  final rule affect the minimum technological
requirements of RCRA Section 3004(o)?

The January 29, 1992, Federal Register finalizes EPA's proposed
actions of March 28, 1986; April 17, 1987; and May 29, 1987; and
completes the codification of the minimum technological
requirements imposed by RCRA Sections 3004(o)(4) and
3004(o)(5)(A).  It also modifies previous liner and leachate
collection and removal system regulations for permitted and
interim status landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles.
In addition, the final rule requires owners and operators of
these three types of units to install a leak detection system,
establish an action leakage rate, develop a response action plan,
and implement a construction quality assurance program.

The following landfills, surface impound-ments, and waste piles
are affected by this final rule: (1) new units for which
construction commences after January 29, 1992; (2) replacement
units reused after July 29, 1992; and (3) lateral expansions of
units for which construction commences after July 29, 1992.  The
rule applies to these units regardless of their permit status,
and the Agency maintains that the permit does not act as a shield
with respect to the leak detection requirements (57 FR 3464).
The regulations at 40 CFR Section 270.4 have, therefore, been
amended to require that an owner or operator apply for a permit
modification to meet these requirements.

  According to the statute, minimum technological requirements
for landfills and surface impoundments include a double-liner and
leachate collection system, and a leak detection system.  Minimum
technological requirements for waste piles include a leak
detection system.  The final rule expanded the double-liner
requirements to waste piles (57 FR 3472).

  The Agency has determined that a leachate collection and
removal system meeting the standards in the final rule fulfills
the statutory requirement for a leak detection system.
Therefore, a unit's leachate collection and removal system
between the top and bottom liners is also its leak detection
system.  The leak detection system must be designed to detect,
collect, and remove leaks at the earliest practicable time.  It
must be constructed of materials that are compatible with the
waste and are strong enough to resist pressure gradients,
designed and operated to minimize clogging, and constructed with
a minimum bottom slope of one percent.  The drainage layer may be
granular or synthetic.  A granular drainage layer must be a least
12 inches thick, and have a minimum hydraulic conductivity of
1x10-2 cm/sec for waste pile and landfill units, or 1x10-1 cm/sec
for surface impoundment units.  Synthetic drainage layers must
have a hydraulic transmissivity of 3x10-5 m2/sec for waste pile
and landfill units, or 3x10-4 m2/sec for surface impoundment
units.  The system requires a sump of sufficient size to collect
and remove liquids efficiently and to prevent liquids from
backing up into the drainage layer.  Variances for alternative
system design are available.  Landfill and waste pile units also
require a leachate collection and removal system immediately
above the top liner which ensures that the leachate depth on the
top liner does not exceed one foot.

  The double-liner system comprises a top and bottom liner.  The
top liner is the liner directly above the leak detection system.
It must be designed to prevent migration of hazardous
constituents into the liner during the active life of the unit
and during the post-closure period (e.g., a geomembrane liner).
The bottom liner must be a composite liner consisting of an upper
component (e.g., geomembrane) designed to prevent the migration
of hazardous constituents into the liner, underlain by at least 3
feet of compacted soil material with a hydraulic conductivity of
no more than 1x10-7 cm/sec.

  Each unit requires a site-specific action leakage rate and a
site-specific response action plan.  The action leakage rate is
based on the maximum leakage rate that the leak detection system
can remove without the fluid head on the bottom liner exceeding
one foot.  When the action leakage rate is exceeded, the response
action plan must specify actions to be taken to ensure that the
leakage does not migrate out of the unit.

  To ensure that the constructed unit meets or exceeds all
design criteria and specifications, a construction quality
assurance (CQA) program must be implemented.  A CQA program must
include a test fill for compacted soil liner components, unless
waived.  It also requires a certification by a registered
professional engineer that the CQA plan has been successfully
carried out and the liner system meets the design and
construction requirements.

  The leak detection system must be monitored at least weekly
during the active life of the unit, and either monthly,
semi-annually, or annually during the post-closure period for
disposal units, depending on the amount of liquids detected in
the sumps.

2.   One-Time Notification Requirement Under Section 268.7(a)(6)

  A manufacturer generates a listed, restricted waste which is
piped directly to a wastewater treatment unit exempt from RCRA
regulation under Sections 264.1(g)(6), 265.1(c)(10), and
270.1(c)(2)(v).  After treatment, the listed waste is discharged
directly to a POTW pursuant to Section 261.4(a)(1)(ii).  Because
the waste is never managed in accumulation tanks or containers
regulated under Section 262.34, it is not subject to "substantive
regulation" as defined in the March 24, 1986, Federal Register
(51 FR 10152-3), and so is not counted in determining generator
status (i.e., conditionally exempt, small quantity, or large
quantity generator).  Which Part 268 land disposal restrictions
notification requirements, if any, apply to this waste?

  The generator must comply with the one-time notification
requirement under Section 268.7(a)(6).  This section states,
"[i]f a generator determines that he is managing a restricted
waste that is excluded from the definition of hazardous or solid
waste or exempt from Subtitle C regulation, under 40 CFR
261.2-261.6 subsequent to the point of generation, he must place
a one-time notice stating such generation, subsequent exclusion
from the definition of solid or hazardous waste or exemption from
Subtitle C regulation, and the disposition of the waste, in the
facility's file" (emphasis added).  In the scenario presented
above, the waste is generated during the manufacturing process
and becomes excluded from the definition of solid waste at the
point of discharge to the POTW (Section 261.4(a)(1)(ii)); in
other words, subsequent to the point of generation (see 56 FR
3866;  January 31, 1991).  Therefore, the one-time notification
requirement of Section 268.7(a)(6) would apply even if, prior to
discharge, the generator does not manage the waste in a manner
that subjects it to substantive regulation (i.e., the generator
does not accumulate the waste in tanks or containers regulated
under Section 262.34).

3.   Alcohol-Content Exclusion for the Ignitability
     Characteristic

  A generator produces a wastestream with a flash point of 54
degrees Celsius that contains the following three components:
water (77 percent), alcohol (13 percent), and a non-alcoholic
liquid component (10 percent).  According to the "alcohol
exclusion" in 40 CFR Section 261.21(a)(1), the characteristic of
ignitability will not apply to an aqueous solution that contains
less than 24 percent alcohol and which has a flash point less
than 60 degrees Celsius.  Does the presence of a non-alcoholic
component cause the aqueous solution to be regulated as an
ignitable waste (D001)?

  No, the additional non-alcoholic liquid component will not
cause the wastestream to be regulated as a D001 waste.  Despite
the presence of the non-alcoholic liquid component, the
wastestream continues to qualify for the alcohol exclusion in 40
CFR Section 261.21(a)(1). According to the May 19, 1980, Federal
Register (45 FR 33108), EPA originally intended for the alcohol
exclusion to exempt alcoholic beverages and some types of latex
paints, which exhibit low flash points due to the alcohol
content, but do not sustain combustion because of the high water
content.  The alcohol exclusion in 40 CFR Section 261.21(a)(1),
however, is not limited to those wastes mentioned in the May 19,
1980, Federal Register.  It applies to all aqueous solutions
containing less than 24 percent alcohol, even if additional
non-alcoholic components are present.  EPA clarified in the June
1, 1990, Federal Register (55 FR 22543) that the term "alcohol"
in Section 261.21(a)(1) refers to any alcohol or combination of
alcohols.  The Agency notes, however, that if the alcohol is one
of those alcohols specified in EPA hazardous waste codes
F001-F005 and has been used for its solvent properties, the waste
must be evaluated to determine if it should be classified as an
F-listed spent solvent waste.

  The alcohol exclusion for the ignitability characteristic was
adopted from the Department of Transportation's (DOT) definition
of "combustible liquids" in 49 CFR Section 173.115(b).  The
alcohol exclusion in 49 CFR Section 173.115(b)(2)(ii) applies to
aqueous solutions containing 24 percent or less alcohol by
volume which contain no less than 50 percent water.  Since EPA
originally intended to be consistent with DOT regulations when
promulgating the alcohol exclusion in Section 261.21(a)(1), the
50 percent water stipulation may be applied to the ignitability
characteristic.  Therefore, as clarified in an internal EPA
memorandum, for the purpose of the ignitability characteristic in
Section 261.21(a)(1), "aqueous" means a solution containing at
least 50 percent water by weight.

CERCLA

4.   Interest Rates on Superfund Cost Recovery Actions

  EPA is authorized by CERCLA Section 111 to expend Superfund
monies to finance response actions in order to facilitate cleanup
of Superfund sites.  The Agency can then take enforcement action
to recover costs from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at
the site pursuant to Section 107.  When calculating recoverable
costs, may EPA charge interest on the amount expended?  If so,
how is the applicable interest rate calculated?

  EPA is authorized to seek interest charges on all amounts
recoverable under CERCLA Section 107(a)(4).  Recoverable amounts
under Section 107(a)(4) include costs not inconsistent with the
National Contingency Plan which are incurred during the process
of conducting a removal action, remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS), or remedial design and
remedial action activity (RD/RA).  In addition, Section 107(a)(4)
authorizes EPA or other Federal agencies to recover damages for
injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, and the
costs of any health assessment or health effects studies carried
out under Section 104(i).  EPA may also recover its oversight
costs, legal costs, and indirect costs in accordance with CERCLA
authorities.

  The interest EPA seeks from PRPs on outstanding debts from
monies spent to clean up Superfund sites, as well as the interest
EPA earns on the fund itself, are determined by the Treasury
Department each year using a one-year constant average of
interest rates paid on U. S. Treasury MK bills.  The interest
rates for fiscal years 1985 through 1992 are as follows:

1985 10.82%  1989 8.39%
1986 7.43%   1990 8.47%
1987 5.63%   1991 7.99%
1988 6.99%   1992 5.70%

  Each fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30
of the following year.  When calculating cost recovery amounts,
EPA applies the interest rate from the date EPA issues a demand
letter or the date of any fund expenditure.  Even if EPA has not
made a specific demand for payment, interest is still recoverable
from the date EPA incurred the costs (see U.S. v. Bell Petroleum
Services, Inc., 734 F. Supp. 771, 784).  If a cost recovery
action takes place over a number of years, interest on the
outstanding balance is recalculated using the new fiscal year's
interest rate until EPA receives full payment.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

5.   Laboratory Use of a Manufactured Chemical

  A company manufactures 26,000 pounds a year of a toxic
chemical, 2,000 of which are manufactured and used in an on-site
laboratory under the supervision of a technically qualified
individual.  Should the 2,000 pounds be counted toward
determination of the manufacturing threshold under Section 313 of
the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA),
or will this activity manufacturer be exempt under the laboratory
use exemption (40 CFR Section 372.38(d))?

  The 2,000 pounds are exempt from the threshold determination
for manufacturing under the laboratory use exemption (40 CFR
Section 372.38(d)) because the toxic chemical was manufactured in
a laboratory under the supervision of a technically qualified
individual.  The facility will count only 24,000 pounds of the
manufactured chemical toward its applicable manufacturing
threshold.

6.   Threshold Determination Based on the Range of Concentration
     Given on the MSDS

  A facility regulated under Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community  Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) uses a chemical
mixture that contains a listed Section 313 toxic chemical.  The
concentration of the toxic chemical is given as a range on the
material safety data sheet (MSDS).  If the maximum and minimum
concentrations are above and below the de minimis concentration
level, how can the facility determine quantities for Section 313
compliance (40 CFR Part 372)?

  The amount of the chemical in the mixture that is above the de
minimis level, and therefore counts toward the threshold, can be
assumed to be proportional to the ratio of the amount above de
minimis concentration to the amount of the total concentration
range.  The concentration of the chemical in the mixture that is
not exempt is the average of the de minimis level and the maximum
concentration.

For example, assume that a facility manufactures 10 million
pounds of a mixture containing 0.25-1.20 percent of a toxic
chemical that is subject to a 1 percent de minimis exemption.
The quantity of that mixture subject to reporting is:

10,000,000 lb x (1.20-1.00) = 2,105,263 lb
                ==========
                (1.20-0.25)        nonexempt mixture

This 2,105,263 pounds of nonexempt mixture is multiplied by the
average concentration above the de minimis, which is 1.1 percent,
or
                 1.20 + 1.00
                 ===========
                      2

2,105,263 x 0.011 = 23,158 lb

In this example, the amount of chemical that counts toward a
threshold is 23,158 pounds.

                              New Publications

How to Order...

NTIS publications are available by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or
writing NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. Be
sure to include the NTIS order number listed under the document.
Hotline publications are available through the
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline by calling a Document Specialist at
1-800-424-9346. Be sure to include the EPA order number (if any)
listed under the document.

RCRA

TITLE: "The RCRA Implementation Study; The Definition of Solid
       Waste Update"
AVAILABILITY:  Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.:  EPA 530-R-92-021

This document presents EPA's preliminary approaches to developing
a better definition of solid waste.

TITLE: "RCRA Waste Minimization Action Plan"
AVAILABILITY:  Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.:  EPA 530-R-92-020

This document outlines activities expected to be implemented over
the next five years that will integrate the Agency's pollution
prevention concept into the RCRA program.

TITLE:  "The Consumer's Handbook for Reducing Solid Waste"
AVAILABILITY:  Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.:  EPA 530-K-92-003

This document describes how people can help solve the growing
garbage problem in the United States.  It outlines how individual
consumers can help alleviate the mounting trash problem by making
environmentally aware decisions about everyday things such as
shopping and lawn care.  The booklet provides several practical
steps to reduce the amount and toxicity of garbage.

CERCLA

TITLE: "Methodology for Early De Minimis Waste Contributor
       Settlements under CERCLA Section 122(g)(1)(A)"
AVAILABILITY:  NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 607

This guidance sets procedures for identifying early de minimis
candidates for potential de minimis settlements early in the
response process (i.e., prior to the signature of a Record of
Decision), and provides a methodology for developing such
settlements.  This guidance also provides practical assistance in
developing early de minimis settlement proposals and agreements.
It supplements OSWER Directive 9847.7-1B "Methodologies for
Implementation of CERCLA Section 122(g)(1)(A) De Minimis Waste
Contributor Settlements," (December 20, 1989).

TITLE: "Superfund Progress; Spring 1992"
AVAILABILITY:  NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 265

This quarterly Superfund progress report discusses
accomplishments in the Superfund program toward protecting people
and the environment from the hazards of uncontrolled chemical
releases.  It portrays facets of the program that often go
unnoticed or unpublicized, reports new developments, and provides
figures to show what the program has accomplished.

TITLE:  "Superfund Progress -- Aficionado's Version"
AVAILABILITY:  NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 267

This publication supplements "Superfund Progress; Spring 1992."
The Aficionado's Version provides detailed statistical
information documenting the environmental progress of Superfund.

TITLE: "Evaluation of Groundwater Extraction Remedies:  Phase
       II, Volume 1 -- Summary Report"
AVAILABILITY:  NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 346

This report is the second phase of a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of groundwater extraction systems being used to
remediate groundwater contamination at hazardous waste sites.
This report was prepared in two volumes.  "Volume 1:  Summary
Report," contains an executive summary and chapters which discuss
the purpose, methodologies, and conclusion of the project.

TITLE: "Evaluation of Groundwater Extraction Remedies:  Phase
       II, Volume 2 -- Case Studies and Updates"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 347

This report is the second phase of a study to evaluate the
effectiveness of groundwater extraction systems being used to
remediate groundwater contamination at hazardous waste sites.
This report was prepared in two volumes.  "Volume 2:  Case
Studies," contains the individual analyses of each of the 24
sites involved in this project.

TITLE: "Accelerating Potentially Reponsible Party Remedial
       Design Starts:  Implementing the 30-Day Study"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 608

This guidance document encourages the Regions to use all
available opportunities to compel potentially responsible parties
to start the remedial design (RD) prior to entry into a Consent
Decree.  At a minimum, the RD should start when the Consent
Decree is lodged.  Where appropriate, Regions should have the RD
start even earlier, as soon after signature of the Record of
Decision as possible.

TITLE:  "Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin, Volume 1, No. 2"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 361

This bulletin outlines Superfund's initiative to develop
presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific types of
sites, contaminants, or both.  This initiative is part of a
larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM), which is designed to speed up all aspects of the
Superfund cleanup process.  This issue of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin describes presumptive remedies for
wood treatment facilities.

TITLE: "Fact Sheet:  An Overview of ERNS Emergency Response
       Notification System Fact Sheet"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 412

This fact sheet provides an overview of the Emergency Response
Notification System (ERNS), a national computer database used to
track information on releases of oil and hazardous substances.

TITLE: "Fact Sheet:  Oil Notifications; Emergency Response
       Notification System Fact Sheet"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 413

This fact sheet provides summary information on notifications to
the Emergency Response Notification System concerning releases of
oil reported in accordance with the Clean Water Act.

TITLE: "Fact Sheet:  CERCLA Notifications Emergency Response
       Notification System Fact Sheet"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 411

This fact sheet provides summary information on notifications of
releases to the Emergency Response Notification System concerning
hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA),
as amended.

TITLE:  "Interim Cashout Settlement Procedures"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 609

This directive addresses certain issues related to Superfund
cashout settlements.  These interim procedures provide approaches
to resolve certain issues which arose in recent cashout
settlements.

TITLE: "Smart Moves in Superfund - Regional Initiatives, Volume
       1, No. 1"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 272

This bulletin serves as an exchange for Regional information
about Superfund.

TITLE: "Guidance on Procedures for Submitting CERCLA Section
       106(b) Reimbursement Petitions and on EPA Review of Those
       Petitions"
AVAILABILITY: NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.:  PB92-963 610

CERCLA Section 106(b)(2) allows a person who has complied with an
administrative order issued under Section 106(a) of CERCLA to
submit a reimbursement petition to EPA for the reasonable costs
plus interest of a response action.  This document describes the
procedures for submitting a CERCLA Section 106(b) petition.  In
addition, this document describes EPA's process for reviewing the
petitions.

EMERGENCY PLANNING AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOWCOMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW

TITLE: "Common Synonyms for Chemicals Listed Under Section 313
       of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
       Act"
AVAILABILITY:  Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
               Hotline
EPA ORDER NO.:  EPA/744-B-92-001

This updated document lists chemical, trade, and common names for
substances subject to Section 313 reporting requirements.  The
substances are listed both alphabetically and by CAS number.

OTHER

TITLE:  "Monthly Hotline Report"
AVAILABILITY:  NTIS
NTIS ORDER NO.: See below

Yearly Subscription    PB92-922 400   530-R-92-014

January 1992           PB92-922 401   530-R-92-014a

February 1992          PB92-922 402   530-R-92-014b

March 1992             PB92-922 403   530-R-92-014c

April 1992             PB92-922 404   530-R-92-014d

May 1992               PB92-922 405   530-R-92-014e

June 1992              PB92-922 406   530-R-92-014f

July 1992              PB92-922 407   530-R-92-014g

The reports contain questions that required EPA resolution or
were frequently asked, publications availability, Federal
Register summaries, and Hotline call statistics.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 70 (Monday, April 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19705-19707]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74668; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-032]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

April 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 27, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III 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 its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, 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 adopt a Trading Permit Holder Regulatory
Fee of $90 per month, per Regular Trading Hours \3\ (``RTH'') Trading
Permit, applicable to all Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'').
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt this fee as the
Exchange's regulatory costs have increased and in order to help more
closely cover the costs of regulating all TPHs and performing
regulatory responsibilities. The Exchange believes the proposed fee
amount is modest, as well as reasonable for TPHs of all sizes. The
Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee will be non-refundable and
assessed through the integrated billing system during the first week of
the following month. Additionally, the Exchange notes that if a Trading
Permit is issued during a calendar month after the first trading day of
the month, the Trading Permit Holder Regulatory Fee for the Trading
Permit for that calendar month will be prorated based on the remaining
trading days in the calendar month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Rule 1.1(qqq) defines ``Regular Trading Hours'' as the hours
during which transactions in options may be made on the Exchange as
set forth in Rule 6.1 (which hours are from 8:30 a.m. to either.
3:00 p.m. or 3:15 p.m. Chicago time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as noted above, the proposed fee is applicable during RTH
only. As such, the Exchange proposes to remove ``(Also applies to
ETH)(37)'' from the Regulatory Fees header and relocate that language
next the ``Options Regulatory Fee (``ORF'')'' and ``DPM's and Firm
Designated Examining Authority Fee'' so that it is clear which
Regulatory fees are applicable during ETH. The Exchange notes that no
substantive change is being made by this change. Rather, the Exchange
believes this proposed rule change will maintain clarity in the Fees
Schedule and avoid potential confusion.
    The proposed rule change is to take effect on April 1, 2015.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ which provides that Exchange rules may provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its
facilities. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the
rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed fee change is reasonable because
it is designed to recoup costs associated with performing its
regulatory obligations with respect to TPHs. The proposed rule change
will help the Exchange offset increased regulatory expenses, but not
result in total regulatory revenue exceeding total regulatory costs.
The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it will apply to all TPHs. Additionally, the Exchange believes
it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess
the fee per Trading Permit because there is generally a correlation
between an increased number of Trading Permits and business on the
Exchange, which in turn requires more resources to regulate that
business. As such, the Exchange believes assessing this fee on a per
Trading Permit basis is the most equitable method of assessing this
fee.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\7\ which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by the Exchange's TPHs and persons
associated with its TPHs with the Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange. The proposed rule change is
designed to fund the Exchange's regulatory program and to help more
closely cover the costs of regulating TPHs for which the Exchange has a
regulatory responsibility. Thus, the proposed changes will help the
Exchange to enforce compliance of its TPHs with the Act and Exchange
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed change to relocate the
language ``(Also applies to ETH)(37)'' makes clear to market
participants which Regulatory fees apply during ETH and reduces
potential confusion. The alleviation of potential confusion will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes any
burden on competition imposed by the proposed rule change is outweighed
by the need to help the Exchange to adequately fund its regulatory
activities to ensure compliance with the Exchange Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2015-032 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-032. 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 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; 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-CBOE-2015-032 and should be
submitted on or before May 4, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08379 Filed 4-10-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 112)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33622-33625]
[DOCID:fr12jn06-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2006-0462; FRL-8181-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Missouri State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This approval pertains to revisions to the
state's rule which restricts emissions from specific Missouri lead
smelter-refinery installations. The effect of this approval is to
remove duplication between two SIP-approved documents, and does not
affect the stringency of the requirements.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective August 11, 2006,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by July 12,
2006. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2006-0462, by one of the following methods:

    1. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: Gwen Yoshimura at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Gwen Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Gwen
Yoshimura, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and
Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2006-0462. 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 through http://www.regulations.gov
 or e-mail information that you consider to be CBI

or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an

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

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30 excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwen Yoshimura at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This section provides
additional information by addressing the following questions:

What Is a SIP?
What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?
What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?
What Is Being Addressed in This Document?
Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?
What Action Is EPA Taking?

What Is a SIP?

    Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop
air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state
air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards
established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under
section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria
pollutants. These pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
    Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to
us for approval and incorporation into the Federally-enforceable SIP.
    Each Federally-approved SIP protects air quality primarily by
addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be
extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents
and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring
networks, and modeling demonstrations.

What Is the Federal Approval Process for a SIP?

    In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the
Federally-enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations
and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements.
This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public
comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking
body.
    Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the
state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide
public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed
Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are
received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by
us.
    All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA
under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally-
approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at title 40, part 52, entitled ``Approval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans.'' The actual state regulations
which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR
outright but are ``incorporated by reference,'' which means that we
have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.

What Does Federal Approval of a State Regulation Mean to Me?

    Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is
incorporated into the Federally-approved SIP is primarily a state
responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we
are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens
are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in
section 304 of the CAA.

What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    In January 1992, the portion of Iron County, Missouri, bounded by
Arcadia and Liberty Townships, was designated as nonattainment for
lead. The major source of lead emissions in the nonattainment area was
the Doe Run Primary Smelting Facility, near Glover, Missouri.
    Primary smelting of lead began at this location in 1968 under prior
ownership. Since the first quarter of 1997 the area consistently
complied with the 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (1.5 [mu]g/
m3), maximum quarterly average National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for lead. Currently the facility has ceased production
and has been operating on a care and maintenance schedule since
December 1, 2003. On October 29, 2004, EPA redesignated Iron County,
Missouri, to attainment for the lead NAAQS and approved Missouri's
associated SIP revision. As part of the SIP revision, EPA approved the
maintenance plan for the area including a settlement agreement.

    The settlement agreement is an element of the Glover Lead
Maintenance Plan, and contains permanent and enforceable emission
reductions for the Doe Run Glover facility. The emission reductions
were originally approved as part of the area's 1997 nonattainment SIP
(62 FR 9970), and were later incorporated into the settlement
agreement. Rule 10 CSR 10-6.120, Restriction of Emissions of Lead From
Specific Lead Smelter-Refinery Installations, duplicates this emission
reduction language. This direct final rule eliminates this duplication,
deleting the language from the rule and leaving the settlement
agreement as is.
    Under state law, the settlement agreement would be subject to
different enforcement mechanisms than a state regulation. However,
under Federal law the settlement agreement (like the preexisting
regulation) is enforceable under Section 113 of the CAA, so this change
does not affect EPA's enforcement authority.

Have the Requirements for Approval of a SIP Revision Been Met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.

What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA approves deletion of references to Doe Run, Glover within
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.120. Requirements for Doe Run, Glover remain
intact within the settlement agreement among MDNR, the Missouri Air
Conservation Commission (MACC), and Doe Run. Removal of this language
from the rule therefore does not affect the stringency of the
requirements.
    On October 28, 2004, the MACC adopted the revised rule after
considering comments received at public hearing. We are processing this
action as a direct final action because the revisions make routine
changes to the existing rule which are noncontroversial. Therefore, we
do not anticipate any adverse comments. Please note that if EPA
receives adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be
severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
parts of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
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.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 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 August 11, 2006. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 31, 2006.
James B. Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

0
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 AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320(c) the table is amended under Chapter 6 by revising
the entry for ``10-6.120'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                       EPA--Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State
   Missouri  citation              Title          effective date     EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.120................  Restriction of              03/30/2005  06/12/2006............  ......................
                           Emissions of Lead
                           From Specific Lead
                           Smelter-Refinery
                           Installations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5250 Filed 6-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 172 (Friday, September 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53464-53465]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22026]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0819]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0 at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Farm to Fork
dinner event. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September
27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0819], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California Department of Transportation has
requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower Drawbridge,
mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The drawbridge
navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet above Mean
High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw opens on
signal from May 1 through October 31 from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. and from
November 1 through April 30 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. At all other times
the draw shall open

on signal if at least four hours notice is given, as required by 33 CFR
117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position 1
p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 27, 2015, to allow the community to
participate in the Farm to Fork dinner event. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections to the
proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at anytime. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies
and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessels can arrange their transits to
minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: August 19, 2015.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-22026 Filed 9-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48137-48138]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EL11-22-000, QF11-115-001, QF11-116-001, et al.]

Notice of Compliance Filing

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
OREG 1, Inc.; OREG 2, Inc.; OREG 3, Inc.;   Docket Nos. EL11-22-000,
 OREG 4, Inc..                               QF11-115-001, QF11-116-001,
                                             QF11-117-001, QF11-118-001,
                                             QF11-119-001, QF11-120-001,
                                             QF11-121-001, QF11-122-001,
                                             QF11-123-001, QF11-124-001.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that on August 6, 2012, OREG 1, Inc., OREG 2, Inc.,
OREG 3, Inc., and OREG 4, Inc. submitted a supplement to the compliance
refund reports filed on March 19, 2012, pursuant to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Orders issued in this proceeding
on May 19, 2011, 135 FERC ] 61,150 (2011), and February 16, 2012, 138
FERC ] 61,110 (2012).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 27, 2012.

    Dated: August 7, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19757 Filed 8-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29744-29745]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12605]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14114-000]

Reliable Storage 2, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On March 18, 2011, Reliable Storage 2, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Rockaway Pumped
Storage Hydroelectric Project that would use water from the Mount Hope
Mine in Rockaway Township, Morris County, New Jersey. The sole purpose
of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder
priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed pumped storage project would be comprised of four
stages of developments, each with a powerhouse and an upper and lower
reservoir. Some of the reservoirs would be included in more than one
development; with a lower reservoir for one development serving as an
upper reservoir for another.
    (a) Stage 1 of the project would consist of the following features:
(1) A new upper reservoir with a surface area of 45 acres on a 60 acre
upland site west of Mount Hope Lake and a total storage capacity of
3,500 to 4,000 acre-feet. The upper reservoir would be filled with
water pumped out of the Mount Hope Mine Complex and have a normal
maximum water surface elevation of 900 feet mean sea level (msl). The
Mount Hope inactive mine would provide access to the lower reservoir
located at 1,000 feet below the ground surface; (2) a reinforced
concrete intake/outlet structure capable of discharging 1,500 cubic
feet per second (cfs); (3) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,300-foot-long
reinforced concrete vertical intake shaft; (4) an 8-foot-diameter
underground penstock; (5) a powerhouse approximately 1,300 feet below
ground level containing one reversible pump turbine with a total
installed generating capacity of 250 megawatts (MW); (6) a transformer
hall; (7) a lower reservoir; (8) a ventilation shaft and ventilation
building at the northern end of the lower reservoir; and (9) various
ancillary access shafts and tunnels. The proposed Stage 1 would
generate over 500 gigawatt-hours per year.
    (b) Stage 2 of the project would consist of the following features:
(1) The lower reservoir utilized in Stage 1, located 1,000 feet below
the ground surface, would serve as the upper reservoir in Stage 2 and
would have a total storage capacity of 5,000 to 5,800 acre-feet. The
upper reservoir would be filled with water pumped out of the Mount Hope
Mine Complex and have a normal maximum water surface elevation at 900
feet below the ground surface. The Mount Hope inactive mine would
provide access to the lower reservoir located at 1,700 feet below the
ground surface; (2) a reinforced concrete intake/outlet structure
capable of discharging 1,500 cfs; (3) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,000-foot-
long reinforced concrete vertical intake shaft; (4) an 8-foot-diameter
underground penstock; (5) a powerhouse approximately 2,000 feet below
ground containing one reversible pump turbine with a total installed
generating capacity of 250 MW; (6) a transformer hall; (7) a lower
reservoir; (8) a ventilation shaft and ventilation building at the
northern end of the lower reservoir; and (9) various ancillary access
shafts and tunnels. The proposed Stage 2 would generate over 500
gigawatt-hours per year.
    (c) Stage 3 of the project would consist of the following features:
(1) The lower reservoir utilized in Stage 2, located 1,700 feet below
the ground surface, would serve as the upper reservoir in Stage 3 and
would have a total storage capacity of 4,000 to 5,000 acre-feet. The
upper reservoir would be filled with water pumped out of the Mount Hope
Mine Complex and have a normal maximum water surface elevation at 1,600
feet below the ground surface. The Mount Hope inactive mine would
provide access to the lower reservoir located at 2,500 feet below the
ground surface; (2) a reinforced concrete intake/outlet structure
capable of discharging 1,500 cfs; (3) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,100-foot-
long reinforced concrete vertical intake shaft; (4) an 8-foot-diameter
underground penstock; (5) a powerhouse approximately 2,800 feet

below ground containing one reversible pump turbine with a total
installed generating capacity of 250 MW; (6) a transformer hall; (7) a
lower reservoir with a storage capacity of 4,200 to 5,000 acre-feet;
(8) a ventilation shaft and ventilation building at the northern end of
the lower reservoir; and (9) various ancillary access shafts and
tunnels. The proposed Stage 3 would generate over 500 gigawatt-hours
per year.
    (d) Stage 4 would be a separate development with identical features
as of Stage 3, including the following: (1) The lower reservoir
utilized in Stage 2, located 1,700 feet below the ground surface, would
serve as the upper reservoir in Stage 4 and would have a total storage
capacity of 4,000 to 5,000 acre-feet. The upper reservoir would be
filled with water pumped out of the Mount Hope Mine Complex and have a
normal maximum water surface elevation at 1,600 feet below the ground
surface. The Mount Hope inactive mine would provide access to the lower
reservoir located at 2,500 feet below the ground surface; (2) a
reinforced concrete intake/outlet structure capable of discharging
1,500 cfs; (3) a 10-foot-diameter, 1,100-foot-long reinforced concrete
vertical intake shaft; (4) an 8-foot-diameter underground penstock; (5)
a powerhouse approximately 2,800 feet below ground containing a
reversible pump turbine with a total installed generating capacity of
250 MW; (6) a transformer hall; (7) a lower reservoir which consist of
the lower reservoir of Stage 3; (8) a ventilation shaft and ventilation
building at the northern end of the lower reservoir; and (9) various
ancillary access shafts and tunnels. The proposed Stage 4 would
generate over 500 gigawatt-hours per year.
    The total rated capacity of the turbines and generators of the
project is 1,000 MW. Upon completion, the proposed project would
generate over 2,000 gigawatt-hours annually. The proposed project would
also include two parallel 10.60-mile-long, 500-kilovolt transmission
lines interconnecting with the proposed Jefferson Substation, located
approximately 5.3 miles north-northwest of Mt. Hope Lake. The
transmission line right-of-way would parallel an existing transmission
line owned by Public Services Electric and Gas Company for 4.3 miles
and would traverse mostly undeveloped forest lands, two lakes and five
streams. The primary transmission line of the proposed project would be
located in part on federal land. Specifically, the transmission line
would traverse a portion of the northern and eastern edge of the U.S.
Army's Picatinny Arsenal for a total of approximately 2.4 miles.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Ramya Swaminathan, Reliable Storage, LLC,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Monir Chowdhury; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14114-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 17, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-12605 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P