[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27743-27744]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12801]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0006; FRL-9978-41]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 16, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected]. The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide petition
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
    [emsp14]Crop production (NAICS code 111).
    [emsp14]Animal production (NAICS code 112).
    [emsp14]Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
    [emsp14]Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in
or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on
the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing
any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the
pesticide petitions described in this document contain the data or
information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the
pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends
to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data
may be needed before EPA can

make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained
through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.

New Tolerance Exemptions for Inerts (Except PIPS)

    PP IN-11069. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0651). The Dow Chemical Company, 1803
Building, Washington Street, Midland, MI 48764, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-
phenoxyethanol (CAS Reg. No. 122-99-6) when used as an inert ingredient
in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or to raw
agricultural commodities after harvest under 40 CFR 180.910. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because the Agency
is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
without any numerical limitation. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11143. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0288). Morse Enterprises Limited,
Inc. d/b/a KeyPlex, P.O. Box 2515, Winter Park, FL 32790, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of patchouli oil (CAS Reg. No. 8014-09-3) when used as an inert
ingredient (solvent, fragrance) in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops and raw agricultural commodities under 40 CFR 180.910 and
applied to animals under 40 CFR 180.930 at a concentration not to
exceed 30% by weight of the pesticide formulation. The petitioner
believes no analytical method is needed because it is not required for
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11148. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0290). BASF Corporation, requests to
establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues
of 1-propanesulfonic acid, 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-,
homopolymer, sodium (CAS Reg. No. 55141-01-0) and 1-propanesulfonic
acid, 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-, sodium salt (1:1), (CAS
Reg. No. 35641-59-9), when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11149. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0264). Spring Trading Company on
behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey
07932, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of 2-propenoic acid, polymer with butyl 2-
propenoate, ethenylbenzene and (1-methylethenyl)benzene, ammonium salt
(CAS Reg. No. 360564-31-4), with a minimum number average molecular
weight of 2,300 daltons, when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    PP IN-11150. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0268). Spring Trading Company on
behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey
07932, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of for 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with
butyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, butyl 2-propenoate, N-(1,1-dimethyl-3-
oxobutyl)-2-propenamide, ethenylbenzene, 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate and
methyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate (CAS Reg. No.481053-27-4), with a minimum
number average molecular weight of 7,300 daltons, when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.
    PP IN-11151. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0263). Spring Trading Company on
behalf of BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, New Jersey
07932, requests to establish an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance for residues of for 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, 2-
oxiranylmethyl ester, polymer with butyl 2-propenoate, ethenylbenzene
and 2-ethylhexyl 2-propenoate (CAS Reg. No. 58499-26-6), with a minimum
number average molecular weight of 3,600 daltons, when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.960. The
petitioner believes no analytical method is needed because it is not
required for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact:
RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: June 5, 2018.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2018-12801 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 169 (Tuesday, September 2, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51913-51916]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20691]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0589; FRL-9916-04-Region-9]

Finding of Failure To Submit a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration State Implementation Plan Revision for Particulate Matter
Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5); California; North Coast
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finding that the
North Coast Air Quality Management District (NCAQMD or District),
located in California, has not made a necessary Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission to address the PSD permitting of PM2.5 emissions,
as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA is
determining that NCAQMD has not submitted a SIP revision to address the
PM2.5 PSD increments and implementing regulations as
promulgated by EPA on October 20, 2010. The deadline for the District
to make the required submittal was July 20, 2012. The CAA requires EPA
to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the
outstanding PSD SIP elements by no later than 24 months after the
effective date of this finding. EPA is making this finding in
accordance with section 110 and part C of the CAA.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is October 2, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, Air Division (Air-3),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St, San
Francisco, CA 94105. By phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures
Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good
cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a
rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment.
The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule
final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no
significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to
submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states
have made no submissions to meet the requirement. No additional fact
gathering is necessary. Thus, notice and public procedure are
unnecessary. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be
impracticable because of the limited time provided under the CAA for
making such determinations. EPA believes that because of the limited
time provided to make findings of failure to submit regarding SIP
submissions, Congress did not intend such findings to be subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking. Finally, notice and comment would be
contrary to the public interest because it would divert Agency
resources from the critical substantive review of submitted SIPs. See
58 FR 51270, 51272, note 17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853
(August 4, 1994). The EPA finds that these constitute good cause under
5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
    Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Overview
    A. Overview of Relevant PM NAAQS Requirements
    B. Revisions to the PSD Program to Implement the PM NAAQS
II. Finding of Failure to Submit
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Overview

A. Overview of Relevant PM NAAQS Requirements

    The EPA initially established National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) under section 109 of the
CAA in 1971. Since then, the EPA has made a number of changes to these
standards to reflect continually expanding scientific information. The
history of the PM2.5 NAAQS is briefly summarized below.
     In July 1997, new PM NAAQS were added, using
PM2.5 as the indicator for fine particles. The EPA's
PM10 standards were retained for the purpose of regulating
the coarse fraction of PM10. The EPA established two new
PM2.5 standards: an annual standard of 15 [mu]g/m\3\, based
on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean PM2.5
concentrations from single or multiple monitors sited to represented
community-wide air quality and a 24-hour standard of 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor
within the area.
     On October 17, 2006, the EPA promulgated revisions to the
NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 with an effective date
of December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). We lowered the 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 from 65 [mu]g/m\3\ to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, and retained the
existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\. In addition,
we retained the existing PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 mg/m\3\,
and revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS (set at 50 mg/m\3\).
     On January 15, 2013, the EPA promulgated revisions to the
NAAQS for PM2.5 and PM10 with an effective date
of March 18, 2013 (78 FR 3086). We lowered the annual standard for
PM2.5 to 12 [mu]g/m\3\ and retained the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard at the level of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. For
PM10, the EPA retained the current 24-hour PM10
primary and secondary standards.

B. Revisions to the PSD Program to Implement the PM2.5 NAAQS

    To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS for PSD purposes, EPA
issued two separate final rules that establish the New Source Review
(NSR) permitting requirements for PM2.5: the NSR
PM2.5 Implementation Rule promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR
28321), and the PM2.5 PSD Increments--Significant Impact
Levels (SILs)--Significant

Monitoring Concentration (SMC) Rule promulgated on October 20, 2010 (75
FR 64864) (PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule). This action
focuses solely on the PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule.
    The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule required states
to submit SIP revisions to EPA by July 20, 2012, adopting provisions
equivalent to or at least as stringent as the PM2.5 PSD
increments and associated implementing regulations. Specifically, the
rule required states to adopt and submit for EPA approval the
PM2.5 increments issued pursuant to section 166(a) of the
CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS. States were also required to adopt and submit for
EPA approval revisions to the definitions for major source baseline
date, minor source baseline date, and baseline area as part of the
implementing regulations for the PM2.5 increment.
    The PM2.5 PSD Increment--SILs--SMC Rule also allowed
States to discretionarily adopt and submit for EPA approval: (1) SILs,
which are used as a screening tool to evaluate the impact a proposed
new major source or major modification may have on the NAAQS or PSD
increment; and (2) a SMC (also a screening tool) which is used to
determine the subsequent level of data gathering required for a PSD
permit application for emissions of PM2.5. However, on
January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia granted a request from the EPA to vacate and remand portions
of the federal PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2))
establishing the SILs for PM2.5 so that the EPA could
reconcile the inconsistency between the regulatory text and certain
statements in the preamble to the 2010 final rule. Sierra Club v. EPA,
705 F.3d 458, 463-64. The Court declined to vacate the portion of the
federal PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.165(b)(2)) establishing SILs for
PM2.5 that did not contain the same inconsistency in the
regulatory text. Id. at 465-66. The Court further vacated the portions
of the PSD regulations (40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c)) establishing a PM2.5 SMC, finding that
the EPA lacked legal authority to adopt and use the PM2.5
SMC to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement to
compile and submit ambient monitoring data. Id. at 468-69. On December
9, 2013, EPA issued a good cause final rule formally removing the
affected SILs and SMC provisions from the CFR. See 78 FR 73698. As
such, SIP submittals should no longer include the vacated
PM2.5 SILs at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and 52.21(k)(2) or the
vacated PM2.5 SMC provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c)
and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) for PM2.5 PSD permitting. EPA notes
that today's finding of failure to submit for the NCAQMD does not
include the SILs or SMC components of the PM2.5 PSD
Increment--SILs--SMC Rule.

II. Finding of Failure To Submit

    The EPA is making a finding that the NCAQMD has failed to submit a
required PSD SIP revision to address the implementation and permitting
of PM2.5 emissions in the NCAQMD PSD program. Specifically,
we are finding that NCAQMD failed to submit a SIP revision addressing
the required PM2.5 PSD elements establishing increments and
the implementing regulations by the specified deadline of July 20,
2012, as required by the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increments--SILs--
SMC Rule. By no later than 24 months after the effective date of this
ruling, the EPA is required by the Act to promulgate a FIP for NCAQMD
to address the PM2.5 PSD requirements for increment. This
finding of failure to submit does not impose sanctions or set deadlines
for imposing sanctions as described in section 179 of the CAA, because
this finding does not pertain to the elements of a part D, title I plan
for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I) and
because this action is not a SIP call pursuant to section 110(k)(5).
This action will be effective on October 2, 2014.
    This action does not make a finding of failure to submit for NCAQMD
regarding the required PM2.5 PSD SIP revision due on May 19,
2011, pursuant to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Implementation Rule,
because NCAQMD submitted a revised PSD rule to address these
requirements on February 28, 2011.
    This action will start a FIP clock that will end 24 months from the
effective date of today's finding, and addresses the PSD revisions
required by the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increments--SILs--SMC Rule.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under EO 12866 and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This final rule does not establish any new information collection
requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule
relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs
under section 166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant
deterioration requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5
NAAQS. Burden means the total time, effort or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain or disclose or
provide information to or for a federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control numbers for the EPA's regulations in
the CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the APA or any other
statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations and small
governmental jurisdictions. For the purpose of assessing the impacts of
this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business that is a small industry entity as defined in the U.S.
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards (See 13 CFR 121);
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule will
not impose any requirements on small entities. This action relates to
the requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Because EPA has
made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not subject to
notice-and-comment requirements under the APA and any other statute, it
is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the RFA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    This action contains no federal mandate under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538 for state, local and tribal governments and the private sector.
The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal
governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This action relates to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. This rule
merely finds that NCAQMD has not met that requirement. Accordingly, no
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector result from this action.
    Additionally, because EPA has made a ``good cause'' that this
action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the APA
or any other statute, it is not subject to sections 202 and 205 of the
UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EO 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the EO to
include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the
states, or the relationship between the national government and the
states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.'' This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on
the states, on the relationship between the national government and the
states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in EO 13132. The CAA
establishes the scheme whereby states take the lead in developing plans
to meet the NAAQS. This rule will not modify the relationship of the
states and the EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the
NAAQS. Thus, EO 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    EO 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have Tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in EO 13175. This rule responds to the
requirement in the CAA for states to submit PSD SIPs under section
166(b) to satisfy certain prevention of significant deterioration
requirements under the CAA for PM2.5 NAAQS. No tribe is
subject to the requirement to submit an implementation plan under
section 166(b) within 21 months of promulgation of PSD regulations
under section 166(a).

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not
subject to EO 13045 because it merely finds that NCAQMD has failed to
make a submission that is required under the Act to implement the
PM2.5 NAAQS.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in EO
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001),
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note), directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS)
in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The
NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, the EPA did not
consider the use of any VCS.

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

    EO 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States. The EPA has determined that this final rule will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This notice is making a finding that the NCAQMD failed to
submit a SIP revision that provides certain basic permitting
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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.
section 804(2). This rule is effective on October 2, 2014.

L. Judicial Review

    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 November 3, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental Relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: August 11, 2014.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2014-20691 Filed 8-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 61796]
[DOCID:fr26oc05-54]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-383-068]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Negotiated Rate

October 19, 2005.

    Take notice that on October 17, 2005, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective October
18, 2005:

Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 1300
Eighth Revised Sheet No. 1400

    DTI states that the purpose of this filing is to report a
continuation of a negotiated rate transaction between DTI and Virginia
Power Services Energy Corp., Inc. and to disclose a non-conforming
service agreement that materially deviates from DTI's form of service
agreement.
    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 and 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 in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5901 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


To EMA February 14, 2005 Measurement Accuracy Margin for the Heavy Duty In Use Testing Final Rule EPA Staff Working Document Background: The settlement outline states that new measurement accuracy margins for the heavy duty in use testing ( HDIUT) program will be jointly determined by EPA, CARB, and the engine manufacturers. The purpose of these margins is to account for the uncertainty associated with portable emissions sampling systems incremental to laboratory performance. EPA maintains that the Final Rule needs to include " hard wired" accuracy margins for all pollutants. These are at a minimum needed for the " pilot programs." EPA has indicated that it would provide " liberal" values for these interim accuracy margins and manufacturers have indicated their agreement with these margins. 1 Further, in meetings on this subject, manufacturers have indicated that more data is needed to establish the accuracy margins for the 2007 fully enforceable program for gaseous emissions and a 2008 fully enforceable program for particulate matter ( PM). EPA also believes that more data would be helpful in determining the final accuracy margins and is willing to engage in a program to develop that information. This paper identifies how the data driven accuracy margins can be developed and how they would be implemented by a direct final rulemaking. It also describes the consequences of failing to complete the program to define data driven accuracy margins in time to start either of the enforceable programs.

Program Development: EPA will develop the basic scope and objectives of the program to derive the data driven margins with the participation of the engine manufacturers. It would be highly desirable for manufacturers to be objectively involved in the design of the program given the scope and importance of the project. ( EPA expects that each manufacturer would have one representative to assist in developing the program.) The programmatic objectives, approach, relative roles of EPA and the engine manufacturers, and any other points of agreement necessary for a successful program would be reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) or similar document.

More specifically, the MOU would address the development of both gaseous and PM accuracy margins. For gaseous emissions, the document would explicitly detail the objectives, testing, data analysis, and commitments from each party including cost sharing, payments in kind, or other possible contributions. 2 The MOU would contain a hard funding limit, i. e., not to exceed value, for the gaseous emissions test program. For PM, the document would specify that the parties agree to develop a detailed testing and data analysis plan ( such as is now underway for the gaseous pollutants) within two months of signing the MOU. The document would also explicitly detail for PM as many of the program objectives, scope, and commitments from each party as possible, including cost sharing, payments in kind, or other possible contributions. Furthermore, the MOU would specify a PM test plan similar in approach and level of testing as that used to develop the gaseous emission accuracy margins. The PM portion of the MOU would also contain a hard funding limit, i. e., not to exceed value, for the test program. Finally, the document would contain an agreement that the parties would not contest the data driven 1 The additive interim accuracy margins ( g/ bhp hr) are as follows: NMHC = 0.17; NOx = 0.5; CO = 0.60; and PM = 0.10. 2 As currently envisioned for the gaseous test program, the primary contribution by all parties will be money. The total dollar cost would be split equally between industry and government. Manufacturers will also contribute test engines, which will be valued as part of their monetary contribution. To EMA February 14, 2005 2 gaseous and PM results so long as they are derived from the agreed upon test program and the application of the agreed upon analytical methods.

Objective, Approach, and Accommodations: The margins will compensate for the difference between in use emission measurement accuracy and laboratory emission measurement accuracy. Individual margins will be established for NOx, NMHC, CO, and PM. This program is not intended to determine potential accuracy allowances for laboratory testing at the levels of the 2007/ 2010 emission standards. The margins determined by this program will be established by a rigorous in field and laboratory test program that assesses, at a minimum, lab to PEMS emission differences and accounts for in use environmental effects on PEMS units. The overall scope, experimental design, and analytical methodology for determining each accuracy margin would be agreed upon well in advance of initiating the test program. The test programs for gaseous and PM pollutants would ideally be integrated and sequenced into the overall test plan to provide final results in time for the fully enforceable programs described above. Nonetheless, in no case should work on developing the gaseous accuracy margins be delayed while a work plan for the PM test program is being completed. It is imperative that the test program for gaseous emissions is initiated and completed quickly to avoid delaying the enforceable program that begins in 2007.

All testing and subsequent data analysis will be overseen by EPA and coordinated with the engine manufacturers. It is anticipated that most, if not all, of the testing and data analysis will be performed under contract by an agreed upon third party or parties. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the experimental designs will be submitted to a statistician to ensure that the information generated is sufficient and appropriate for developing the accuracy margins, and to establish an algorithm for calculating the margins. This overall approach will provide assurances that the experimental designs are acceptable to all participants and is intended to prevent multiple interpretations of the data driven results so that the margins can be implemented by direct final rulemaking. It will also help ensure that the program will be completed on schedule and budget. ( Although EPA intends to implement data driven accuracy margins by direct final rule, the Agency cannot guarantee that the test program results would end up in a final rule if significant adverse comments are received.)

Finally, EPA understands that participation by manufacturers in the test programs will result in some burden to those companies, but will produce useful information. Therefore, if manufacturers agree to participate in the test programs, EPA would reduce the manufacturers' testing burden under the original pilot program ( 2005 2006 for gaseous and 2006 2007 for PM) to five vehicles per designated engine family.

Schedule: In order to provide adequate time to promulgate the data driven accuracy margins, the test programs will generally need to conform to the following schedule. First, the MOU containing the experimental design, analytical methods, and resource commitments for determining the accuracy margins should be signed by senior management of all parties no later than March 15, 2005. Second, the subsequent detailed test and data analysis plan for PM should be signed by senior management of all parties no later than May 15, 2005. Third, the test programs should be completed and final accuracy margins available by September 30, 2006 for gaseous emissions and by September 30, 2007 for PM. To EMA February 14, 2005 3 Regulatory Provision: If it is determined that the test programs as described above are an appropriate mechanism for determining final accuracy margins, the basic programmatic objectives and approach, and the relative roles of the EPA and the engine manufacturers would be reflected in the HDIUT final rule. The key provisions of the MOU, such as the contributions and deliverables for each party, would be referenced and to the degree possible contained in the preamble of the rule. Certain key provisions would also be reflected in the regulatory language as a means to provide certainty to all parties. These provisions would include items such as the pilot program provisions and, as appropriate, the consequences of failing to complete the accuracy margin test programs as specified below. The accuracy margin algorithm may also be included in the regulatory text.

The MOU will address a test program that is designed to provide the data ( and associated data analysis) needed to derive the final data driven accuracy margins by September 30, 2006 for gaseous emissions and September 30, 2007 for PM. The MOU will specify key interim deliverable milestones. It will also specify that the final data driven accuracy margins will be documented in a final report from the contractor as soon as practicable, but in no case later December 1, 2006 for gaseous and December 1, 2007 for PM. All parties will agree to use these accuracy margin values for program planning and implementation of the respective enforceable program. The data driven accuracy margins will be proposed by EPA in a direct final rule as soon as possible after the final values and documentation are available. The MOU will acknowledge that publishing the direct final rule with the data driven margins, or if necessary publishing a final rule based on the data driven test results due to public comment, would fulfill EPA's obligation under the settlement agreement.

If a failure to obtain the final accuracy values and documentation from the contractor by the December 1 date is the fault of the manufacturers, and the delay is less than a total of 3 months, the enforceable program will be delayed by the same amount of time it takes to complete and finalize the final contractor report, i. e., a one to one correspondence. 3 If the final values and documentation are delayed beyond 3 months, the enforceable program will go into abeyance for the calendar year ( 2007 for gaseous emissions or 2008 for PM). However, the number of engine families that would otherwise have been designated for testing if the enforceable program was not delayed will be accumulated and may be designated for testing when the enforceable program is initiated without counting toward the allowable annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in that year. The normal 18 month period for testing and reporting would be expanded to 24 months for such " carryover" engine families. If necessary, this cycle will be repeated until the final accuracy margins are identified and documented in a final report. 4 A manufacturers' failure may be demonstrated by missing one or more of the critical milestones as follows:

 Torque/ BSFC v. speed/ load and AECD maps delivered to contractor at time of contract signature 3 The anticipated June 30 date for designating engine families, which initiates the 18 month testing/ reporting period, would be delayed. 4 If the cycle is repeated, an additional six months will be added to the testing/ reporting period for each year the enforceable program is delayed. To EMA February 14, 2005 4  Contracts funded and signed within 60 days after MOU signature  Engines delivered to contractor within 90 days after MOU signature A failure by any individual manufacturer that leads to missing one or more of the critical milestones described above would be regarded as a failure by all manufacturers.

If a failure to obtain the final accuracy values and documentation from the contractor by the December 1 date is the fault of EPA or a party other than the manufacturers, and the delay is less than a total of 3 months, the enforceable program will be delayed by the same amount of time it takes to complete and finalize the final contractor report, i. e., a one to one correspondence. 5 If the final values and documentation are delayed beyond 3 months, the Phase 1 and 2 pilot programs will be implemented for that year using the interim accuracy margins. If necessary, this cycle will be repeated until the final accuracy margins are identified and documented in a final report.

Regardless of the party at fault, if the enforceable program is delayed, 2007 and subsequent model year engines, as appropriate, may be selected and subject to enforcement testing ( for gaseous as well as PM emissions) once the accuracy margins are established and the enforcement program begins. Such engines would be counted toward the total number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in any calendar year. In the case of a manufacturers' failure, the total number of engine families would be equal to the engine families that would otherwise have been designated for testing if the enforceable program was not delayed, plus those designated for testing under the annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing when the enforceable program begins. In the case of a failure by EPA or a party other than the manufacturers, the total number of engine families would be equal to the annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in the calendar year when the enforceable program begins.

If fundamental, irresolvable technical problems are identified relative to the PM portable emission measurement systems, the PM pilot program or enforceable program goes into abeyance until such time as suitable emission measurement devices are identified or the problems otherwise resolved. Again, if the enforceable program is delayed, the applicable 2007 and subsequent model year engines may be selected and subject to enforcement testing ( for gaseous as well as PM emissions) once the accuracy margins are established and the enforcement program begins. Such engines would be counted toward the annual cap on the number of engine families that may be designated for in use testing in any calendar year.

5 The anticipated June 30 date for designating engine families, which initiates the 18 month testing/ reporting period, would be delayed.


[Federal Register: September 2, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 170)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53846]
[DOCID:fr02se10-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0201; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD;
Amendment 39-16314; AD 2010-11-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
Models TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 Reciprocating Engines Installed In,
But Not Limited To, Diamond Aircraft Industries Model DA 42 Airplanes;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-11-09,
which published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to TAE models
TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines, installed in, but
not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries model DA 42 airplanes. The
part number for engine model TAE 125-01 is missing a digit in paragraph
(c) and in paragraph (e)(3). This document corrects those part numbers.
In all other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: This correction is effective September 2, 2010. The compliance
times of AD 2010-11-09 remain unchanged.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 8, 2010 (75 FR 32253), we published
a final rule AD, FR Doc. 2010-12540, in the Federal Register. That AD
applies to TAE models TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating
engines, installed in, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries
model DA 42 airplanes. We need to make the following corrections:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 32254, in the second column, in paragraph (c), in the fifth
line, ``or 02-7200-1401R1'' is corrected to read ``or 02-7200-
14017R1''.
    On page 32254, in the second column, in paragraph (e)(3), in the
second line, ``engine P/N 02-7200-1401R1'' is corrected to read
``engine P/N 02-7200-14017R1''

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 26, 2010.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. C1-2010-21870 Filed 9-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 47223]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19764]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1997-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Indiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1997-DR), dated June 23, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 28, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of June 23, 2011.

    Vermillion and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-19764 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34692-34693]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14630]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14066-000]

Inside Passage Electric Cooperative

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing
Applications

    On January 20, 2011, and supplemented on May 18, 2011, the Inside
Passage Electric Cooperative 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 Gartina Falls Hydroelectric
Project (Gartina Falls Project) to be located on Gartina Creek, near
Hoonah, Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit 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 run-of-river project consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A 40-foot-wide, approximately 126-foot-long, 15-foot-
high concrete diversion structure with an inflatable gate at the head
of Gartina Falls; (2) a 20-foot-wide 40-foot-long concrete intake
structure; (3) an 8-foot-wide, 40-foot-long sluiceway on the left
abutment of the diversion dam; (4) an approximately 54-inch-diameter,
200-foot-long, steel penstock that would convey water from the
diversion dam to the powerhouse; (5) a 15-foot-wide and 10-foot-long,
rock-lined tailrace; (6) a powerhouse containing a single 600-kilowatt
turbine/generator unit; (7) a small switchyard located adjacent to the
powerhouse; (8) an approximately 4-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt
transmission line connecting the project switchyard to an
interconnection near Hoonah airport; (9) an approximately 0.3-mile-long
access road; and (10) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual
generation output for the project is 1.8 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Peter A. Bibb, Operations Manager, Inside
Passage Electric Cooperative, P.O. Box 210149, 12480 Mendenhall Loop
Road, Auke Bay, AK 99821, Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patrick Murphy; 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,

(202) 502-8659. 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
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14066-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: June 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14630 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 20163]
[FR Doc No: 2023-07103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1504-000]

Partin Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Partin Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 19, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 30, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-07103 Filed 4-4-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70057-70061]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29069]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9488-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Tar Lake Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Partial Deletion of the following
two parcels of the Tar Lake Superfund Site (Site) located in Mancelona,
Michigan from the National Priorities List (NPL): The non-East Tailings
Area (ETA) part of property PIN 05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres); and the
non-ETA part of property PIN 05-11-129-007-00 (33.63 acres). Refer to
Figures 1 to 3 in the deletion docket to view the location of the two
parcels being proposed for deletion. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix to the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
This direct final partial deletion is being published by EPA with the
concurrence of the State of Michigan, through the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), because EPA has determined that all
appropriate response actions at these two parcels under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed.
However, this partial deletion does not preclude future actions under
Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains only to the two property PINs listed
above. The deletion of these two parcels from the Site affects all
surface soils, subsurface soils, structures and groundwater within the
boundaries of these parcels. In 2005, the ETA, approximately 45.49
acres in the northeastern part of the Site, was deleted from the NPL
when EPA determined that the ETA was acceptable for unrestricted use
and unlimited exposure (UU/UE). The two parcels being proposed for
deletion are adjacent to and south of the ETA. The remaining areas of
the Site will remain on the NPL and are not being considered for
deletion as part of this action.

DATES: This direct final partial deletion is effective January 9, 2012
unless EPA receives adverse comments by December 12, 2011. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final partial deletion in the Federal Register informing the
public that the partial deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     Email: Karen Cibulskis, Remedial Project Manager, at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Megan McSeveney, Community Involvement
Coordinator, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: Gladys Beard, Deletion Process Manager, at (312) 697-
2077.
     Mail: Karen Cibulskis, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5 (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Megan McSeveney,
Community Involvement Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(SI-7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand delivery: Megan McSeveney, Community Involvement
Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (SI-7J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the docket's normal hours of operation and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The normal business
hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
    Instruction: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. 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 email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Hours: Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
     Mancelona Public Library, 202 West State Street,
Mancelona, MI 49659, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday through
Thursday, 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.; Friday 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. and Saturday 9
a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cibulskis, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (SR-6J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 5 is publishing this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion to delete two parcels of the Tar Lake Superfund Site from the
NPL. This partial deletion pertains to all surface soils, subsurface
soils, structures and groundwater within the boundaries of the non-ETA
part of PIN 05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA part of PIN
05-11-129-007-00 (33.63 acres). The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40
CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL
as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). This partial deletion of the Tar Lake Superfund Site
is proposed in accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with
the Notice of Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the
National Priorities List, 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in
section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the
NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future
conditions warrant such actions.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective January 9, 2012 unless EPA
receives adverse comments by December 12, 2011. Along with this direct
final Notice of Partial Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent to Delete in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Partial Deletion before the
effective date of the partial deletion and the partial deletion will
not take effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the two parcels of the Tar Lake
Superfund Site and demonstrates how they meet the deletion criteria.
Section V discusses EPA's action to partially delete these two parcels
of the Site from the NPL unless adverse comments are received during
the public comment period.

II. NPL Partial Deletion Criteria

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

III. Partial Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to this partial deletion of the Tar
Lake Superfund Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State of Michigan on this partial
deletion prior to developing this direct final Notice of Partial
Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete co-published today in the
``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal Register.
    (2) EPA provided the State with 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion prior to
their publication today; and the State, through MDEQ, concurred on the
partial deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Partial Deletion, a notice of the availability of

the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion is being published
in a major local newspaper, The Antrim Review, in Bellarie, Michigan.
The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public comment period
concerning the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed partial
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    (5) If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public
comment period on this partial deletion action, EPA will publish a
timely notice of withdrawal of this direct final Notice for Partial
Deletion before its effective date and will prepare a response to
comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received. Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in
itself create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the partial
deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
future response actions should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletions

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA part
of PIN 05-11-129-007-00 (33.63 acres) of the Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site (EPA ID: MID980794655) originally consisted of
approximately 234 acres of land located just east of Highway 131, north
and south of Elder Road, and south of the Village of Mancelona in the
north central part of the lower peninsula of Michigan. The John Otis
Charcoal Iron Furnace Company manufactured iron at the Site from 1882
to 1886, and the Antrim Iron Works Company took over the Site in 1886
and continued to manufacture iron there until 1945. From approximately
1910 to 1944, a tar-like residue from Antrim Iron Works' charcoal
production process was discharged into an on-site depression south of
Elder Road (also known as ``Tar Lake'') that covered four acres of
land. The Site was proposed to be placed on the NPL on December 30,
1982 (47 FR 58476); and was placed on the NPL on September 8, 1983 (48
FR 40658).
    The Site was separated into two operable units (OUs): The first
operable unit (OU1) included the tar contamination in the 4-acre
depression in the northwest corner of the Site and the second operable
unit (OU2), comprised the remaining contamination beneath the 4-acre
Tar Lake depression and any additional contaminated groundwater and
soil within the Site. On November 25, 2005 EPA partially deleted the
ETA component of OU2. At this time, all surface soils, subsurface
soils, structures and groundwater within the boundaries of the non-ETA
part of PIN 05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA part of PIN
05-11-129-007-00 (33.63 acres) proposed for deletion are part of OU2.
All of OU1 and the remaining sections of OU2 will remain on the NPL
(please refer to Figures 1 to 3). This partial deletion notice will
focus on the activities conducted at the two parcels in OU2 subject to
this notice.
    Ownership of the Site changed several times during the succeeding
years after 1945, and in 2009 Mancelona Private Power Producers (MP3)
of Traverse City, Michigan, purchased the two parcels that are the
subject of this partial deletion and are the current owners of this
property. MP3 is an energy company planning to build and operate a
$140,000,000 biomass energy plant on these two parcels and the already-
deleted ETA section of the Site.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    In June 1999, EPA commenced the Remedial Investigation (RI) field
work for OU2. The overall objective of the RI for OU2 was to
characterize what effects, if any, the former iron manufacturing
processes had on the Site, including determining the lateral and
vertical extent of any contamination; understanding the potential risk
to human health and the environment; and developing sufficient data to
perform a feasibility study (FS). As part of the RI/FS for OU2, EPA
conducted a baseline risk assessment to determine the current and
future effects of contaminants on human health and the environment.
Initially, the Site was anticipated to have only industrial reuse
potential. The RI for OU2 originally quantified only industrial reuse
risks, but was expanded to apply address industrial, commercial,
recreational, and residential uses.
    During the RI, EPA determined that an on-site plume of groundwater
in the shallow unconfined aquifer beneath the 4-acre Tar Lake
depression was contaminated with benzene and 2,4-dimethylphenol above
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and state drinking water standards.
EPA also concluded that on-site groundwater collected from groundwater
monitoring wells and off-site groundwater collected from residential
wells in the shallow drinking water aquifer were contaminated with iron
and manganese at concentrations above the State of Michigan's Secondary
Drinking Water Standards, but not at concentrations above EPA's health-
based risk levels. Therefore, the 2002 Record of Decision (ROD)
determined that iron and manganese were not chemicals of concern for
the CERCLA remedy. Groundwater samples collected up gradient and
between the 4-acre depression and the two parcels proposed for deletion
did not contain benzene, 2,4-dimethylphenol or iron above MCLs or risk-
based levels during the RI. The RI and FS were completed on August 7,
2000.

Selected Remedy

    A ROD for OU2 was signed on February 25, 2002 to address the soil
and groundwater. The OU2 ROD listed the following site-wide remedial
action objectives:
    a. Prevent human exposure through contact, ingestion, or inhalation
of contaminated tarry-like waste residue (surface tar) in the Creosote
Area.
    b. Prevent potential ecological impacts from exposure to surface
tar.
    c. Control potential erosion and off-site transport of tar to
nearby Nelson Lake.
    d. Prevent leaching of contaminants from the 4-acre depression or
``rind'' into soil and from soil into groundwater.
    e. Remediate on-site contaminated groundwater in the shallow
unconfined aquifer to concentrations below MCLs or risk-based Michigan
PA 451 Part 201 Generic Cleanup Criteria for Groundwater within a
reasonable time frame. Groundwater down gradient of the site is used
for drinking water purposes and therefore a rapid restoration of on-
site groundwater should be considered.
    f. Minimize potential for future releases of contaminated on-site
groundwater to off-site groundwater.
    The parcels identified for deletion are up gradient of both the
sources of contamination and the contaminated groundwater plume being
addressed in the ROD for OU2. The elements of the selected remedy
pertaining to the two parcels are:

    a. Institutional controls (ICs), including recording legal notices
on property deeds to restrict on-site land and groundwater use; and
    b. Long-term monitoring to assess groundwater conditions over time.
    The ICs would indicate that only industrial, commercial and
recreational land use would be allowed until risks associated with
residential use had been assessed. In addition, EPA would ensure that
the current property owners place language in their property deed to
explain that no groundwater wells should be installed until on-site
groundwater in the shallow drinking water aquifer is below the MCL for
benzene (5 parts per billion (ppb)) and below the state drinking water
standard for 2,4-dimethylphenol (370 ppb). When groundwater monitoring
indicates that on-site groundwater is below MCLs and state drinking
water standards during four consecutive sampling events, there would no
longer be restrictions on groundwater.
    Two Explanation of Significant Differences (ESDs) were written, in
2002 and 2004, for the Site; however neither one impacted the areas
currently proposed for deletion. In 2009, property owners redeveloping
a portion of the Site requested clarification of the groundwater
institutional controls. The 2002 ROD did not clarify whether
groundwater use was prohibited on the entire site until the groundwater
contamination is cleaned up, even if groundwater sampling at a specific
property indicates chemical concentrations are below MCLs and MDEQ
criteria at that property. Also, the requirements for groundwater use
referenced in the 2002 ROD are drinking water standards. On September
14, 2009 EPA issued an ESD clarifying that groundwater at the Site may
be used for either drinking water or non-potable purposes before the
biosparge groundwater treatment cleanup is complete, provided the use
of the groundwater does not negatively impact EPA's selected remedy for
the site, including, but not limited to, the biosparge system and
groundwater monitoring wells, or pose an unacceptable risk to human
health. The restrictive covenants or other institutional controls to be
implemented at the Site will state that groundwater at the Site may be
used for drinking water or non-potable purposes provided the property
owner submits a proposal to EPA and MDEQ, showing the proposed depth,
location and pumping rate of each proposed non-potable well, including
an evaluation demonstrating that the expected use of the proposed
well(s) should not negatively impact EPA's remedy. The proposal must
also certify that non-potable wells will not be used for potable use
and for drinking water wells, and the property owner must submit four
consecutive sampling events at a monitoring well installed at each
proposed well location, indicating that groundwater contaminants do not
exceed applicable MCLs, MDEQ drinking water criteria, and other
applicable or relevant and appropriate criteria.

 Response Actions

    Institutional controls are necessary for the non-ETA part of PIN
05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-
007-00 (33.63 acres) to restrict residential land use because the ROD,
and subsequent investigations, assumed future commercial, industrial or
recreational land use. In addition, ICs are necessary for groundwater
to prevent drinking water wells or non-potable use wells from being
installed and to protect the integrity of the ongoing biosparge remedy,
unless property owners provide assurances that groundwater use does not
impact the ongoing groundwater remedy or provide an unacceptable risk.
On April 16, 2010 and June 10, 2010 MP3 recorded two Declarations of
Restrictive Covenants for the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-006-00
(41.4 acres), and the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-007-00 (33.63
acres), respectively. These Declarations are consistent with the land
and groundwater use restrictions required in EPA's 2002 ROD and 2009
ESD. These restrictive covenants were approved by both EPA and the
state before being recorded. These two parcels are facilities as that
term is defined in part 201 (Environmental Remediation) of the State of
Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA
451, as amended (NREPA). MDEQ makes no warranty as to the fitness of
these two parcels for any general or specific use, and prospective
purchasers or users are advised to conduct due diligence prior to
acquiring or using any portion of these two parcels and to undertake
appropriate actions to comply with the requirements of section 20107a
of the NREPA.
    As noted in the RI, groundwater sampling conducted up gradient and
between the 4-acre depression and the two parcels proposed for deletion
did not contain benzene, 2,4-dimethylphenol or iron above MCLs or EPA
risk-based levels. Sampling during the RI at MW-16, located within the
parcels proposed for deletion, also resulted in non-detects for
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
(SVOCs) prior to the well going dry. MDEQ has been conducting annual
and semi-annual groundwater monitoring since 2004 at a groundwater
monitoring well cluster located between the area of groundwater
contamination that is being remediated as part of OU2 and the two
parcels that are being deleted. Benzene, 2,4-dimethylphenol,
methylphenols or iron have not been detected in these wells above
applicable criteria, including MDEQ's health-based drinking water
standard for iron, which is currently 2,000 [mu]g/L. This data, along
with the data collected from MW-16 and subsequent groundwater data
collected by the current property owner for their Baseline
Environmental Assessment and Due Care Plan, provides assurance that the
contaminated groundwater plume being remediated as part of OU2 has not
impacted the groundwater beneath these two parcels.

Cleanup Goals

    EPA determined and documented in a June 22, 2010 memo to the file
that all remedy components pertaining to these two parcels have been
implemented. There were no cleanup standards associated with remedial
actions taken at these parcels. Groundwater monitoring results obtained
during the RI and during the operation of the groundwater remedy
demonstrate that MCLs and MDEQ Residency Drinking Water Criteria (RDWC)
for benzene (5 [mu]g/L), 2,4-dimethylphenol (370 [mu]g/L),
methylphenols (370 [mu]g/L) or iron (2,000 [mu]g/L) have not been
exceeded in the groundwater underlying these parcels proposed for
deletion.

Operation and Maintenance

    The selected remedy in the 2002 ROD did not specify any ongoing
operation and maintenance on the two parcels being proposed for
deletion, other than ensuring compliance with the recorded ICs and
conducting monitoring to ensure groundwater is not being impacted by
the benzene contaminated groundwater beneath Tar Lake.

 Five-Year Review

    EPA conducted a five-year review of the Site in 2009 and determined
that the remedy selected in the 2002 ROD was protective in the short-
term. The five-year review did not recommend any modifications to the
selected remedy for the two parcels being proposed for deletion. To
achieve long-term protectiveness, the five-year review recommended
implementation of proper restrictive covenants on all Site properties
now in place for these two

parcels proposed for deletion, as well as additional data collection
and evaluation activities in some areas of the Site to evaluate iron
concentrations in groundwater. These evaluations being conducted are
outside the boundaries of these two parcels and do not affect these two
parcels. Five-year reviews will continue because waste was left in
place in other areas of the Site above levels that allow for
unrestricted use/unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). These two parcels
proposed for deletion will be reviewed during the Site-wide FYR to
ensure compliance with the institutional controls. The next five-year
review will be conducted in 2014.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required by
section 113(k) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Documents in the deletion docket which EPA relied on for
determining that the parcels listed herein meet the criteria for
deletion from the NPL are available to the public in the information
repositories listed above in the Docket section and at http://www.regulations.gov.

Determination That the Criteria for Deletion Have Been Met

    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Michigan, has determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than five-year
reviews, have been completed on the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-006-
00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-007-00 (33.63
acres). Therefore, these two parcels meet the criteria of 40 CFR
300.425(e) may be deleted from the NPL. The State of Michigan, through
MDEQ, concurred on this proposed deletion by letter dated May 10, 2011.

Deletion Action

    EPA, with concurrence of the State of Michigan through MDEQ, has
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operation, maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have
been completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting all surface soils,
subsurface soils, structures and groundwater within the boundaries of
the non-ETA part of PIN 05-11-129-006-00 (41.4 acres) and the non-ETA
part of PIN 05-11-129-007-00 (33.63 acres) parcels of the Tar Lake Site
from the NPL.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking it without prior publication. This action will
be effective January 9, 2012 unless EPA receives adverse comments by
December 12, 2011. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice for Partial Deletion before the effective date of
the deletion, and it will not take effect. EPA will prepare a response
to comments and continue with the deletion process on the basis of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and the comments already
received. There will be no additional opportunity to comment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Dated: October 24, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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

PART 300--[AMENDED]

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

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

Appendix B--[Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the entry
under ``Tar Lake'', ``MI '' to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State                      Site name                   City/County                   Notes a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                   MI                     Tar Lake                       Antrim                           P

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a * * *
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. 2011-29069 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P