[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9879-9882]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3870]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0032]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
in the vicinity of the South shores of Lake Pontchartrain adjacent to
the East bank of the Lakefront Airport runways in New Orleans,
Louisiana. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons
and vessels from the potential safety hazards associated with high-
speed aerobatic displays by the participants of the 1812 Blue Angels
Air Show, during the War of 1812 Commemoration.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0012 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marcie Kohn, Sector New
Orleans, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0032), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2012-0032'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and
would like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all
comments and material received during the comment period and may change
the rule based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0032'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
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. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one on or before February 28, 2012 using one of the four
methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a
public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid
this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place announced by a
later notice in the Federal Register.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact LCDR Marcie Kohn at the telephone number or email address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.

Basis and Purpose

    In conjunction with the War of 1812 Commemoration celebrations
taking place in the city of New Orleans, the Coast Guard has received
an application request for a marine permit in support of the Blue
Angels Air Show, to take place over the waters of Lake Pontchartrain.
The Blue Angels Air Show is scheduled to take scheduled to occur daily
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m, beginning April 19, 2012
through April 22, 2012. The request calls for a safety zone to be
created over the Lake to accommodate the air show participants with an
aerobatic display box. The Coast Guard has determined that the safety
zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from the potential
safety hazards associated with the high speed aerobatic displays of the
air show participants.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes a temporary safety zone extending
approximately 3,000' from the South shores of Lake Pontchartrain,
adjacent to the East bank of the Lakefront Airport runways. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to protect persons and vessels from
the potential safety hazards associated with high speed aerobatic
displays from the participants of the Blue Angels Air Show. There will
be a 12,000' x 3,000' aerobatic display area, which requires the
surface of the water to be sterile of non-participants. The Blue Angels
Air Show is scheduled to take scheduled to occur daily between the
hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., beginning April 19, 2012 through April 22,
2012. The coordinates for the aerobatic display area are as follows:
    SE corner: N 30[deg]02'07.71'' & W 90[deg]01'53.56''
    SW corner: N 30[deg]02'07.71'' & W 90[deg]04'10.05''
    NW corner: N 30[deg]02'38.37'' & W 90[deg]04'10.05''
    NE corner: N 30[deg]02'38.37'' & W 90[deg]01'53.56''

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Executive
Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that those Orders.
    The impacts on routine navigation are expected to be minimal
because the proposed enforcement periods are short in duration.
Additionally, closure of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal entrance to
Lake Pontchartrain, in support of the Seabrook Surge Barrier
construction project by the Army Corps of Engineers, restricts the
majority of commercial traffic. As a result, the proposed safety zone
will have minimal impact, if any, on the area which is used primarily
by recreational boaters.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 7 hours daily during the Air Show display. The small entities that
may be affected include small entities engaged in the business of
recreational boating in the area or other marine traffic in the area.
Vessel traffic could pass safely around the safety zone. If you are a
small business entity and are significantly affected by this regulation
please contact Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) Marcie Kohn, Sector New
Orleans, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact LCDR Marcie Kohn. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast
Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. This proposed
rule involves establishing a safety zone and as such is categorically
excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. A
preliminary ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0032 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0032  Safety Zone; Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All
waters on the South shores of Lake Pontchartrain adjacent to the East
bank of Lakefront Airport runways, extending along the Southern banks
of the Lake, and including the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal entrance
to Lake Pontchartrain. The coordinates are: latitude 30[deg]02'38.37''
N, longitude 90[deg]01'53.56'' W to latitude 30[deg]02'38.37'' N,
longitude 90[deg]04'10.05'' W to latitude 30[deg]02'07.71'' N,
longitude 90[deg]04'10.05'' W to latitude 30[deg]02'07.71'' N,
longitude 90[deg]01'53.56'' W.
    (b) Effective Dates. This rule is effective beginning April 19,
2012 through April 22, 2012, daily between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5
p.m., local time.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
33 CFR part 165, Subpart C of this title, entry into this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans.
The Captain of the Port New Orleans may be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into or passage through the Safety Zone
must request permission from the Captain of the Port New Orleans, or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF 16, or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port New Orleans and designated personnel.
Designated personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers
of the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: February 1, 2012.
P.W. Gautier,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2012-3870 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14868-14869]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0635]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0071

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0071, Boat
Owners Report--Possible Safety Defect. Our ICR describes the
information we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by
OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our
performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before April
18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2015-0635] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2015-0635], and must be received by April 18,
2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0071.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (80 FR 59801, October 2, 2015)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Boat Owners Report--Possible Safety Defect.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0071.
    Summary: This collection of information provides a means for

consumers who believe that their recreational boats or designated
associated equipment, contains substantial risk, defects or fail to
comply with Federal safety standards to report the deficiencies to the
U.S. Coast Guard for investigation and possible remedy.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 4310 gives the Coast Guard the authority to
require manufacturers of recreational boats and certain items of
designated associated equipment to notify owners and remedy: (1)
Defects that create a substantial risk of personal injury to the
public; and (2) failures to comply with applicable Federal Safety
standards.
    Forms: CG-5578, Boat Owner's Report--Possible Safety Defect.
    Respondents: Owners and users of recreational boats and items of
designated associated equipment.
    Frequency: One time.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 21
hours to 17 hours a year due to a decrease in the annual number of
respondents.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: March 11, 2016.
Thomas P. Michelli,
U.S. Coast Guard, Deputy Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2016-06193 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9304-9305]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER18-718-001.
    Applicants: Guzman Energy Partners LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Market-Based Rate Tariff #1
Amendment to be effective 10/4/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5042.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-913-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation,
a Wisconsin corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Theoretical Reserve
Amortization to be effective 1/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-914-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Avista Corp Cancellation Chewelah
Const Agrmt SA T1137 to be effective 2/27/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-915-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Compliance filing: PSCo-TSGT--Boone-Huerfano-Stip &
Offer Stlment 480 0.0.0 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-916-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule No. 160 NPC/
Sun Valley Morgan Concurrence to be effective 4/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-917-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: OATT PSCo Rush Creek Gen TIE
Rate Filing to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-918-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SCE Revised WDAT Attachment
J--Revised ITCC to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-919-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: SCE Revised TO Tariff
Appendix X--Revised ITCC to be effective 1/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR17-2-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Amendment to December 9, 2016 Petition of the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed
Revisions to the Rules of Procedure.

    Filed Date: 2/27/18.
    Accession Number: 20180227-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/20/18.

    Docket Numbers: RR18-2-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Amendments to the SERC Reliability
Corporation Regional Reliability Standard Development Procedure.
    Filed Date: 2/12/18.
    Accession Number: 20180212-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/5/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at:
    http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: February 27, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-04376 Filed 3-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 8469]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03969]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER18-865-000]

Power 52 Inc.; 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
Power 52 Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 12, 2018.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website 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 protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 20, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03969 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31273-31274]
[FR Doc No: E9-15418]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8924-8]

Proposed Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement agreement; Request for public
comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed settlement agreement to address a lawsuit filed by the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (``Alliance'') in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: Alliance
of Automobile Manufacturers v. EPA, No. 08-1109 (DC Cir.). On or about
March 10, 2008, the Alliance filed a petition for review challenging
regulations promulgated by EPA in a final rule entitled ``National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories:
Gasoline Distribution Bulk Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline
Facilities, and Gasoline Dispensing Facilities,'' 73 FR 1916 (Jan. 10,
2008), published at 40 CFR part 63, subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC (the
``Gasoline Distribution NESHAP''). Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, EPA will sign and submit for publication in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP that contains amendments that are substantially the
same in substance as set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement as
expeditiously as practicable after entry of this Agreement. If EPA
signs and submits for publication in the Federal Register a notice of
final rulemaking to amend the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP that
contains amendments that are substantially the same in substance as set
forth in Attachment A to this Agreement, the Alliance and EPA will file
a joint motion for dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Rule
42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by July 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0471, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement Agreement

    This proposed settlement agreement would resolve a petition for
review filed by the Alliance challenging regulations promulgated by EPA
in a final rule entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Source Categories: Gasoline Distribution Bulk
Terminals, Bulk Plants, and Pipeline Facilities, and Gasoline
Dispensing Facilities,'' 73 FR 1916 (Jan. 10, 2008), published at 40
CFR part 63, subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC (the ``Gasoline Distribution
NESHAP''). Specifically, the Alliance challenged the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP by raising three issues regarding: (1) Allegedly
duplicative requirements under

Subparts BBBBBB and CCCCCC; (2) application of the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP to engine testing facilities; and (3) application
of the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP to tanks solely used to fuel
emergency generators and fire pumps. Under the terms of the proposed
settlement agreement, EPA will sign and submit for publication in the
Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the Gasoline
Distribution NESHAP that contains amendments that are substantially the
same in substance as set forth in Attachment A to this Agreement as
expeditiously as practicable after entry of this Agreement. If EPA
signs and submits for publication in the Federal Register a notice of
final rulemaking to amend the Gasoline Distribution NESHAP that
contains amendments that are substantially the same in substance as set
forth in Attachment A to this Agreement, the Alliance and EPA will file
a joint motion for dismissal with prejudice in accordance with Rule
42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations
that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate,
or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the
Department of Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that
consent to this settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of
the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement
Agreement

A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Settlement Agreement?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0471) contains a copy of the proposed settlement
agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket
identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 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.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: June 24, 2009.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-15418 Filed 6-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMO/07/455

Brussels, 10th November 2007

1st Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) Meeting, November 9,
Washington, DC - Joint Statement

The United States and the European Union recognize the importance of our
shared commitment to reducing barriers to international trade and
investment to increase the standard of living of our citizens.  Our
leaders agreed at the April 2007 US-EU Summit on a Framework for
Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration between the United States
of America and the European Union, which indicated priority areas for
work.  A key element of this new initiative was the establishment of the
Transatlantic Economic Council to oversee the efforts outlined in the
Framework and accelerate progress on economic integration.  The Council
is co-chaired by Allan Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic
Policy and Director of the National Economic Council, and Günter
Verheugen, Vice-President of the European Commission, and is formally
advised by the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, the Transatlantic
Consumers Dialogue, and the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue.

Since April, the United States and the European Union have made
substantial progress in removing barriers to trade and investment and in
easing regulatory burdens.

Today, we launched an investment dialogue aimed at reducing barriers to
transatlantic investment and promoting open investment regimes globally.

On accounting standards, we anticipate that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission will soon complete a rulemaking to accept, without
reconciliation to U.S. GAAP, financial statements of EU issuers prepared
in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards; and that
the European Commission is preparing a mechanism that will allow use of
U.S. GAAP.

In order to enhance security and facilitate trade, we have established a
road map for reaching mutual recognition in 2009 of U.S. and EU trade
partnership programs through key performance-based stages.

We have eased the burden of introducing new drugs for rare diseases by
agreeing on a common format to apply for orphan drug designations.

We have issued a joint report on regulatory impact assessments with the
goal of ensuring that such assessments take due account of the impact of
future regulations on international trade and investment.

Before the next U.S.-EU Summit, and after receiving scientific advice,
the European Commission will act to definitively resolve the
long-standing issue regarding the importation into the EU of U.S.
poultry treated with pathogen reduction treatments.

In 2008, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission will review products
subject to its mandatory third-party testing to allow suppliers
declarations of conformity for products with a good record of compliance
with relevant standards.

By the time of the next meeting of the Transatlantic Economic Council,
the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, after conferring
with its European Commission counterparts, will report on progress made
to facilitate trade in electrical products with respect to conformity
assessment procedures for the safety of such products.

Our experts have reached preliminary agreement on the areas in which
existing standards for pure biofuels are compatible and will, by the end
of the year, identify areas in which additional progress can be made in
2008.

In 2008, the European Commission will table a legislative proposal
allowing access to information by patients on legal pharmaceuticals.

In order to reduce costs for transatlantic trade, the European
Commission has proposed legislation to allow the importation into the EU
of products labeled with both English and metric measurements.

The Council welcomes the Financial Markets Regulatory Dialogue’s
consideration of how and in which areas to establish mutual recognition
in the field of securities and identification of other approaches to
facilitate cross-border trade in financial services.

Our ambitious work has only begun.  The Council will continue to address
priorities identified at the last U.S.-EU Summit and will work with
stakeholders to identify other priorities to be addressed by the
Council.  We also intend to enhance cooperation on import safety.  Our
work over the months since the Summit has shown the kind of progress we
can make, but it is only the start of what will be a long and fruitful
process

  PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60721-60726]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24116]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9901-60-Region 2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Ludlow Sand & Gravel
Superfund Site

AGENCY: United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 is
publishing a direct final Notice of Deletion of the Ludlow Sand &
Gravel Superfund Site (Site), located in the Town of Paris, Oneida
County, New York, from the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).This direct final Notice of Deletion is being
published by EPA with the concurrence of the State of New York (State),
through the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). EPA and NYSDEC have determined that all appropriate response
actions under CERCLA, other than monitoring and maintenance (M&M) and
five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not
preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: This direct final deletion will be effective December 2, 2013
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 1, 2013. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final deletion in the Federal Register, informing the public
that the deletion will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax: To the attention of Isabel Rodrigues at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: To the attention of Isabel Rodrigues, Remedial
Project Manager, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway,
18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Record Center's normal hours of
operation (Monday to Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002: EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the 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 via
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 comments. If you
send comments to EPA via email, your email address will be included as
part of the comment that is placed in the Docket and made available on
the Web site. If you submit electronic comments, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your

comments and with any disks or CD-ROMs that you submit. If EPA cannot
read your comments due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comments.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption and should 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 hard copy.
Publicly available Docket materials can be viewed electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov or obtained in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, Phone: 212-
637-4308, Hours: Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and
Town of Paris, Town Hall, 2580 Sulphur Springs Road, Sauquoit, NY
13456-0451, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday-Thursday from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and
NYSDEC Central Office, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY 12233-7016, Phone: 518-
402-9775, Hours: Monday-Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Please call
for an appointment. and
NYSDEC Region 6 Sub-Office, State Office Building, 207 Genesee Street,
Utica, NY 13501, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: Monday-Friday from 8:30
a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,Please call for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Isabel Rodrigues, Remedial Project
Manager, by mail at Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th floor,
New York, NY 10007-1866; telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax at 212-637-
4284; or email at<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 2 is publishing this direct final deletion of the Ludlow
Sand & Gravel Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
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 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). As described in
Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a site deleted from the NPL remains
eligible for remedial actions if conditions at the site warrant such
action.
    Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, this action will be effective December 2, 2013 unless EPA
receives significant adverse comments by November 1, 2013. Along with
this direct final Notice of Deletion, EPA is co-publishing a Notice of
Intent to delete the Site in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's
Federal Register. If adverse comments are received within the 30-day
public comment period, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of this
direct final Notice of Deletion before the effective date of the
deletion and the deletion will not take effect. EPA will, if
appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue with the
deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the
comments received. In such a case, there will be no additional
opportunity to comment.
    Section II below explains the criteria for deleting sites from the
NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using for this
action. Section IV discusses the Site and demonstrates how it meets the
deletion criteria. Section V discusses EPA's action to delete the Site
from the NPL unless significant adverse comments are received during
the public comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

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

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site.
    (1) EPA consulted with the state of New York prior to developing
this direct final Notice of Deletion and the Notice of Intent to Delete
also published today in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of the Federal
Register.
    (2) EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of this
notice and the parallel Notice of Intent to Delete prior to their
publication today, and the State, through the NYSDEC, has concurred on
the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this direct final Notice
of Deletion, a notice of the availability of the parallel Notice of
Intent to Delete is being published in a major local newspaper, The
Observer-Dispatch (Utica). The newspaper notice announces the 30-day
public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
Site from the NPL.
    (4) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the 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 deletion action, EPA will publish a timely
notice of withdrawal of

this direct final Notice of Deletion before its effective date and will
prepare a response to comments. If appropriate, EPA may then continue
with the deletion process based on the Notice of Intent to Delete and
the comments already received.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA's management of sites. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following summary provides the Agency's rationale for deleting
the Site from the NPL.

Site Background and History

    The Site is located in the Town of Paris, Oneida County, New York,
approximately six miles south of Utica. The Ludlow Sand & Gravel
property encompasses approximately 60 acres with landfill activities
confined to approximately 18 acres. The fill area is fenced on the
western boundary along Holman City Road. The south and east sides of
the landfill are bounded by a designated wetland and an unnamed stream,
while to the north, the landfill is bounded by a gravel pit which is
also part of the Site.
    The landfill began receiving municipal refuse from surrounding
communities in the 1960's. The landfill also received bulk liquid,
including septage, waste oils, coolants, and sludges containing metals.
The bulk liquids were disposed of at the landfill by surface
application. The on-site gravel pit, known as the North Gravel Pit
(NGP), located to the north of the landfill, was also periodically used
for the disposal of bulk waste oils. Drummed liquid wastes were
reportedly not disposed of in the landfill. Drummed liquids were bulked
using a vacuum truck and were applied to the landfill in a manner
similar to the bulk liquids previously described. The landfill
continued to accept waste until it was shut down by court order in
1988.
    As early as 1966, New York State cited the owner/operator, Mr.
Ludlow, for improper or illegal waste disposal practices. A variety of
legal actions were taken against Mr. Ludlow in response to legal
complaints made by the New York State Department of Law.
    Preliminary site investigations conducted by NYSDEC in 1982
identified the presence of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in leachate
seeps emanating from the landfill. Reports from the community and site
inspections conducted by the NYSDEC indicated that the Site warranted
proposal for the NPL. In December 1982, the Site was proposed to the
NPL (47 FR 58476). In September 1983, the Site was placed on the NPL
(48 FR 40658). EPA, in consultation with the State, divided the site
into two operable units (OUs). OU1 addressed the landfill proper and
OU2 was to address contamination in off-site groundwater, the on-site
wetlands, and the NGP.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study

    Special Metals Corporation of Utica, New York, a potentially
responsible party (PRP), agreed to perform a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for the site in an Administrative Consent
Order with the State that was signed on September 10, 1984. The
completed RI/FS was submitted to the State in 1986 and included a
recommendation for landfill closure as the remedy for the site. The FS
recommended alternatives for remediating the landfill that were less
stringent than the federal and state requirements. Subsequently, Mr.
Ludlow, another PRP, engaged a contractor to perform additional
investigations to supplement the initial investigation and prepare a
closure plan. A second investigation report with a final closure plan
was submitted to the State for review. In July 1987, a Federal District
Court Judge in the District Court of Binghamton ordered the landfill to
close by February 15, 1988 pursuant to federal and state regulation and
ordered the partial payment of response costs to the State. Concurrent
with the PRP's additional investigations, the EPA tasked a contractor
to perform a supplemental RI/FS in response to the State's request for
assistance in evaluating the cost of the alternatives. The supplemental
RI/FS was released to the public for comments in August 1988.
    A supplemental RI to investigate the drinking water supply was also
conducted. The Village of Clayville's water system is located
approximately three quarters of a mile northwest of the landfill. This
system consists of a supply well 81 feet deep that has a capacity of 70
gallons per minute. The only individual water supply wells within 1,000
feet of the landfill are three homeowner wells along Mohawk Street
located upgradient to groundwater flow around the landfill and eight
additional homeowner wells located between 1,000 and 3,000 feet from
the landfill. The three closest residential wells and the Clayville
public water supply were sampled for organics and metals. The results
indicated that all off-site residential and public water supplies met
federal and state drinking water standards.
    In 1994, the PRPs proposed a work plan for a supplemental RI/FS to
address OU2. As some removal of contaminated material had occurred as
part of the implementation of the OU1 remedy, the PRPs believed that
sufficient work was done to address the contamination at the NGP and
that any further remedial action was unnecessary. The EPA and NYSDEC
disagreed and the dispute was taken to court. Subsequently, the work
plan was approved for implementation under a Consent Judgment, by order
of the court, dated August 3, 1996. The purpose of the supplemental RI
was to characterize the extent of groundwater contamination further and
to define the nature and extent of residual contamination at the NGP.
The supplemental RI was conducted between November 1996 and January
1998.

Selected Remedy

    Based upon the results of the RI/FS, EPA signed a Record of
Decision (ROD) on September 30, 1988. The remedial measures identified
in the 1988 OU1 ROD were as follows:
     Consolidate approximately 10,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and sediment located adjacent to the landfill and
dispose of it in the landfill and then place either a clay or synthetic
cover over it to prevent rain water from coming into contact with the
buried materials;
     Collect leachate from seepage areas;
     Dewater the landfill, if necessary, by using either a
passive drain system or groundwater extraction wells;
     Implement upgradient groundwater controls to lower the
water table to prevent groundwater from coming into contact with the
waste material;
     Treat the contaminated leachate and groundwater at an on-
site facility, or if the volume of water were small, transport the
water and leachate to an approved disposal facility;
     Install a perimeter fence around the site, including the
wetlands;
     Recommend that institutional controls be established in
the form of deed restrictions on future uses of the site; and

     Monitor the groundwater, private wells, and surface water
to ensure that remediation of the landfill is effective.
    In addition, the ROD called for implementation of a soil/sediment
sampling program to fully define the volume and extent of contaminated
soils to be consolidated under the cap. New York State and the PRPs
entered into a Consent Judgement in the Northern District of New York
for the implementation of an Approved Remedial Plan (ARP). The ARP
addressed the elements of the 1988 ROD. The ARP also included elements
that were to be addressed as part of OU2, including the excavation and
consolidation of contaminated sediments from the wetlands and PCB-
contaminated soil from the NGP into the landfill. It also included a
supplemental groundwater study that was completed by the PRPs in
January 1990.
    Many soil and groundwater samples were collected at the site to
characterize the nature and extent of contamination as part of the
supplemental RI. These and other data indicated that PCBs were the
principal contaminants which exceeded soil cleanup values. These PCB
concentrations remained at depth in the NGP because of the limitations
of the excavation equipment which was used when the NGP was excavated
as part of the OU1 remedial activities. In addition, low levels of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and inorganic compounds (metals) were
also detected in soil and groundwater samples on a sporadic and limited
basis. During the supplemental RI quarterly groundwater sampling was
performed at five wells around the perimeter of the NGP from September
1997 until March 1999 for a total of seven sampling events. Monitoring
well MW11-R had detectable concentrations of PCBs (0.13 parts per
billion (ppb) and 0.24 ppb) in the unfiltered samples during two of the
seven sampling events (September 1997 and June 1998). All other wells
sampled and all filtered samples did not demonstrate detectable
concentrations. This indicated that PCB contamination is not migrating
in groundwater and is confined to the pit area. Based upon these data,
it was determined that no further remedial action was necessary for the
groundwater, with the assumption that the residual PCB contamination
remaining below the water table in the NGP would be addressed as part
of the OU2 remedy.
    The remedy for OU2, specified in a ROD issued by NYSDEC on March
31, 2003, primarily addressed residual PCB contamination at depth in
the NGP and specifically called for:
     Solidifying soil at depth with PCB concentrations above 10
parts per million (ppm);
     Implementing a pre-design delineation sampling program to
determine the area to be treated;
     Implementing soil bench-scale testing to determine the
grout characteristics;
     Backfilling the NGP to its original elevation, covering
the area with clean soil to raise the surface elevation to its original
grade, and applying a vegetative cover;
     Limiting site access and issuing a deed restriction to
prohibit groundwater usage and limiting the land use to nonresidential
purposes;
     Installing at least two downgradient deep groundwater
monitoring wells to ensure that PCB migration in the groundwater is not
occurring; and
     Implementing a groundwater monitoring program.

Response Actions

    The remedial action (RA) for OU1 was conducted by the PRPs pursuant
to the Consent Judgement with the State. During the remedial design,
the soil contamination in the wetlands areas and NGP were delineated.
The Remedial Design Report was approved by the NYSDEC in June 1990.
    RA activities for OU1 started in 1990 and were performed under the
oversight of the NYSDEC. Sediment from the wetlands was excavated to
the NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) No.
94-HWR-4046 surface soil guidance value of 1 ppm for PCBs and
consolidated into the landfill prior to the cap completion.
Approximately 40 cubic yards of sediment with PCB concentrations
greater than 500 ppm were disposed of off-site at an approved disposal
facility. Approximately 60,000 cubic yards of soil were excavated from
the NGP, of which approximately 40,000 cubic yards were found to be
contaminated with PCBs and were consolidated into the landfill prior to
completion of the cap. The other 20,000 cubic yards of material had
nondetectable levels of PCBs and were placed on the bank of the NGP.
The total amount of soil that was excavated from the NGP was greater
than anticipated and the excavation using conventional excavation
equipment became difficult when groundwater was encountered. Topsoil
and seeding were placed over the entire capped area which was enclosed
within a chain link fence. A leachate collection system, a leachate
treatment system, gas collection/lateral drainage layer and gas venting
systems were also installed. Monitoring wells were installed
downgradient from the landfill. Construction was completed in 1992.
    A report documenting the cleanup efforts, Construction Document
Report, was submitted by the PRPs and approved by the NYSDEC in May
1995.
    The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) prepared the RD
plans and specifications for OU2 through an interagency agreement with
the EPA. The 2003 ROD identified pressure grouting as the method to be
used to solidify the PCB-impacted soils in the NGP. The EPA performed a
Value Engineering Assessment between the proposed pressure grouting
technology and soil mixing technology. In-situ soil mixing (ISSM),
sometimes referred to as in-situ solidification/stabilization (ISS),
was identified as having the potential to complete the project at a
lower cost and in a shorter time frame. As a result the EPA decided to
use this technology to address the PCB contamination above 10 ppm in
the NGP. The EPA Region 2 removal program staff directed and oversaw
construction activities.
    From May 21 to June 8, 2007, the contractor mobilized at the site
to prepare the site for construction activities. Also during this
period of time, ponded water within the proposed work area was pumped
into four 22,000-gallon frac tanks where it was stored until laboratory
results indicated that it was acceptable to discharge.
    Following on-site mobilization in June 2007, construction
activities were conducted in two phases. Phase I of the RA included
ISSM of PCB-contaminated soils and installation of groundwater
monitoring wells. Phase II included backfilling the pit with clean fill
to its original elevation, seeding the area to provide a vegetative
cover, and installing culverts, swales, and a retention basin for storm
water runoff.
    On July 17, 2007 the ISSM contractor mobilized equipment to begin
the field demonstration activities. Three sets of two 8.5-foot diameter
overlapping grouted columns were advanced in a noncontaminated area of
the NGP. The center of the columns were placed 7.36 feet apart to
ensure column overlap. The columns were advanced to 15 feet below
ground surface (bgs). Each set was made with a different mixture of
Portland cement. A few days later these columns were exposed and
samples were collected for physical testing to ensure the desired specs
were met. Based on the results of the testing, a 7% Portland cement
mixture was selected and full production was initiated. By August 22,
2007, a total of 582 columns were completed resulting in approximately
17,000 cubic yards of solidified soil.

    On September 25, 2007, a final inspection was conducted by EPA and
NYSDEC for OU2. Subsequently, on April 30, 2009, a site-wide inspection
was conducted by EPA and NYSDEC in conjunction with the most recent
five-year review of the site. Based on the result of these inspections,
it was determined that construction for the entire site had been
completed, that the remedy had been implemented consistent with the
RODs, and is functioning as intended by the decision documents.

Cleanup Goals

OU1
    Following the completion of the OU1 RA a long-term monitoring
program was implemented to monitor the effectiveness of the cap and
leachate collection system. Results indicated that the system was
effective. An evaluation and comparison of historical leachate and
groundwater data were conducted in 2006 and concluded that there was
minimal potential for impacts to downgradient water supply wells and
groundwater. Based on this evaluation, a decision was made to
discontinue the operation of the leachate collection and treatment
system operation while continuing the monitoring program for
groundwater, water supplies and leachate. The leachate treatment system
was shutdown on June 10, 2008.
    During the most recent leachate monitoring event in December 2011,
results were similar to pre-shutdown concentrations. Water level
measurements were also consistent with the levels measured pre-
shutdown. Water quality analytical data indicated that PCBs continued
to be below method reporting limits, and data for other contaminants
were similar to previous results with the exception of two
contaminants, total phenols and antimony, which exceeded state ambient
water quality criteria for the first time. Concentrations of total
phenolics are, however, less than the required discharge limit of 0.008
ppm. Elevated antimony, along with continued elevated iron and
manganese concentrations in leachate water, are attributed to the
release of these metals from soils due to the reducing conditions
within the leachate and groundwater beneath the landfill and are not
landfill-related contaminants of concern.
    During the most recent site inspection, the landfill cover and
other site features, including manholes, fencing, roads, site building
and monitoring wells were generally noted to be in good condition and
the presence of seeps was not observed. Therefore, the landfill cover
system appears to be operating effectively to limit or prevent
concentrations of site contaminants from exceeding groundwater criteria
off-site.
OU2
    CDM, under contract with EPA, conducted pre-design field
investigation soil sampling in January 2006 to horizontally and
vertically delineate the PCB contamination in the NGP area. Activities
were completed in accordance with USACE-approved Final Sampling and
Analysis Plan (SAP) which consists of the Field Sampling Plan (FSP) and
Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP).
    During this investigation, CDM collected 305 soil samples from both
surface and subsurface locations. Surface samples were collected less
than 0.5 feet bgs, and deeper subsurface samples were collected 0.5
feet to 36 feet bgs in the NGP area. Only PCB analyses were performed
on these samples in accordance with the approved SAP. Only two Aroclors
(1254 and 1248) were detected in varying concentrations in the soil
samples. The Data Quality Control Summary Report (DQCSR) discusses both
the data quality and analytical results of the soil samples collected
by CDM during the investigation.
    The ROD states that performing end-point verification sampling
outside the perimeter of the grouted area is required to ensure that
all PCB-contaminated soils have been solidified in accordance with the
Remedial Action Objectives. The EPA and NYSDEC agreed to completely
delineate the contamination before the soil mixing took place in lieu
of end-point verification sampling after the soils had been stabilized.
Additional soil sampling was performed between January and August, 2007
to satisfy this requirement. Results from the 2006 and 2007 delineation
sampling events showed PCB concentrations ranging from below the
detection limit, in numerous samples, to 500 ppm at soil boring SB-14,
located in the northwest portion of the NGP, at a depth of 8-10 feet.
As noted above, all soils with PCB concentrations above the cleanup
criterion were addressed during the RA.

Monitoring and Maintenance

    The Long-Term Monitoring Program for the Ludlow site commenced in
2000. This program consists of the following activities:
     Monthly inspections are performed to visually assess and
document the condition of the landfill perimeter fence and access road,
leachate management system building, gas collection system, monitoring
wells and manholes, and overall integrity of the cover;
     Water level measurements are obtained from designated
monitoring wells at the landfill to assess seasonal water levels
fluctuations and evaluate groundwater flow direction;
     Groundwater samples are collected from 17 monitoring
wells, three residential wells and one public supply well during the
monitoring events in accordance with the Long-Term Monitoring Program
and analyzed for PCBs and VOCs;
     Surface water is sampled annually from the culvert where
the ponded wetland discharges beneath Holman City Road to monitor PCBs;
     Annual methane monitoring at the landfill gas vents,
manholes, and monitoring wells is conducted; and
     Leachate collected from the landfill is pumped through the
on-site leachate treatment facility prior to discharge in accordance
with the Operation, Maintenance and Monitoring Manual (O&M Manual). As
noted above, operation of the leachate collection and treatment system
was discontinued in 2008 after it was determined that there was minimal
potential for the capped landfill to impact to downgradient water
supply wells and groundwater.
    No operation or maintenance for the stabilized soils is necessary
for OU2. The area covering the solidified columns was backfilled to the
former existing grade. This covered the columns with up to 30 feet of
clean soil. In accordance with the OU2 ROD, a groundwater monitoring
program was implemented. Five new wells installed during the OU2
remediation were sampled to establish a baseline. The monitoring of
these wells is subject to the OU1 Long-Term Monitoring Program for the
site. Monitoring and maintenance will continue to be performed by
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, P.C., under contract with NYSDEC.
Institutional controls were established in the Declaration of
Covenants, Restrictions and Environmental Easement which was executed
on August 9, 2013.

Five-Year Review

    Hazardous substances remain at this Site above levels that would
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Therefore, pursuant
to CERCLA Section 121(c), EPA is required to conduct a review of the
remedy at least once every five years. Three five-year reviews have
been completed at the Site. The first five-year review was completed on
July 1, 1999, the second was completed on July 1, 2004, and the

third was completed on July 1, 2009. The 2009 five-year review included
a recommendation to implement institutional controls. This was
completed on August 9, 2013 with the execution of the Declaration of
Covenants, Restrictions and Environmental Easement. The fourth five-
year review is scheduled to be completed on or before July 1, 2014.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities for this Site have been satisfied
as required in CERCLA Sections 113(k) and 117, 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and
9617. As part of the remedy selection process, the public was invited
to comment on the proposed remedy. Prior to each five-year review, the
public was notified through an ad in a local newspaper, The Observer-
Dispatch (Utica), that a review of the remedy would be conducted and
that the results would be available in the local site repository upon
completion. Contact information for questions related to the five-year
review was also provided. All other documents and information that EPA
relied on or considered in recommending this deletion are available for
the public to review at the information repositories identified above.

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

    The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup specified in
the ROD for all pathways of exposure. All selected remedial action
objectives and clean-up levels are consistent with agency policy and
guidance. No further Superfund responses are needed to protect human
health and the environment at the Site.
    The NCP specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if ``all
appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented,
and no further response action by responsible parties is appropriate.''
40 CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New
York, through NYSDEC, believes that this criterion for deletion has
been met. Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site from the NPL.
Documents supporting this action are available in the Site files.

V. Deletion Action

    EPA, with the concurrence of the State of New York, has determined
that all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed and
that no further response actions under CERCLA, other than M&M and five-
year reviews, are necessary. Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from
the NPL. Because EPA considers this action to be noncontroversial and
routine, EPA is taking this action without prior publication. This
action will be effective December 2, 2013 unless EPA receives adverse
comments by November 1, 2013. If adverse comments are received within
the 30-day public comment period of this action, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of this direct final Notice of Deletion before the
effective date of the deletion and the deletion will not take effect.
EPA will, if appropriate, prepare a response to comments and continue
with the deletion process on the basis of the Notice of Intent to
Delete and the comments received. In such a case, 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,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

     Dated: September 20, 2013.
 Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 2.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 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 to Part 300 [Amended]

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing ``NY,''
``Ludlow Sand & Gravel,'' ``Clayville''.

[FR Doc. 2013-24116 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P