[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50256-50257]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21660]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0896; Airspace Docket No. 18-ANM-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Lewiston, ID

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce
County Airport, Lewiston, ID, by increasing the upward extension of
Class D airspace from 2,700 feet MSL to 3,900 feet MSL. The upward
extension was incorrectly lowered in the final rule published March 15,
2018.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 8, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Operations Support Group,
Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th
St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport,
Lewiston, ID to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (83 FR
11411; March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0986 amending Class D
airspace, and Class E surface airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County
Airport, Lewiston, ID.
    Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered the upward extension
of Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport Class D airspace was incorrectly
reduced from 3,900 feet MSL to 2,700 feet MSL. This rule corrects that
error and restores the upward extension of Class D airspace to 3,900
feet MSL.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
D airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying the Class D airspace legal description for
Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID. The Class D airspace
is retained up to 3,900 feet MSL, not 2,750 feet MSL, as stated in a
final rule published in the Federal Register of March 15, 2018 (83 FR
11411).
    Accordingly, action taken herein to amend the upward extension of
Class D airspace at Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, Lewiston, ID, is
in the interest of flight safety. Therefore, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action''

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 13, 2018, effective September 15, 2018, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM ID D Lewiston, ID [Amended]

Lewiston-Nez Perce County Airport, ID
    (Lat. 46[deg]22'28'' N, long. 117[deg]00'55'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,900 feet MSL within a 4.1-mile radius from Lewiston-Nez Perce
County Airport clockwise from the airport 290[deg] bearing to the
066[deg] bearing, and within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport from
the 066[deg] bearing to the airport 115[deg] bearing and within a
6.6-mile radius of the airport from the 115[deg] bearing to the
airport 164[deg] bearing, and within a 4.1-mile radius of the
airport from the airport 164[deg] bearing to the airport 230[deg]
bearing, and within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport from the
230[deg] bearing to the airport 290[deg] bearing. This Class D
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on September 28, 2018.
Stephanie Harris,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-21660 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


	ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	40 CFR Part 52

	[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034; FRL-       ]

	Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

	Maryland; Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:   EPA is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Maryland on October 24, 2007 and
June 30, 2008, except for the 2009 nitrogen oxides (NOx) ozone season
and NOx annual allocations, the 2009 set-aside allocations and the
Compliance Supplement Pool (CSP) allocations.  These revisions address
the requirements of EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR).  Although
the District of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit found CAIR to be flawed, the
rule was remanded without vacatur and thus remains in place.  Thus, EPA
is continuing to approve CAIR provisions into SIPs as appropriate.
CAIR, as promulgated, requires States to reduce emissions of sulfur
dioxide (SO2) and NOx that significantly contribute to, or interfere
with maintenance of, the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state.  CAIR
establishes budgets for SO2 and NOX for States that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in downwind States and requires the
significantly contributing States to submit SIP revisions that implement
these budgets.  States have the flexibility to choose which control
measures to adopt to achieve the budgets, including participation in
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions.  In the full SIP revisions that EPA is
proposing to approve, Maryland will meet CAIR requirements by
participating in these cap-and-trade programs.  EPA is proposing to
approve the full SIP revisions, as interpreted and clarified herein, as
fully implementing the CAIR requirements for Maryland, except for the
2009 NOx ozone season and NOx annual allocations, the 2009 set aside
allocations and the CSP allocations.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [insert date 30
days from date of publication].

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034 by one of the following methods:

A.  www.regulations.gov.  Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B.    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
C.    Mail:   EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D.   Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.

Instructions:  Direct your comments to Docket ID No.
EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0034.  EPA's policy is that all comments received will
be included in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at 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 www.regulations.gov or
e-mail.  The www.regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access”
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.  If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.  If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit.  If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.  Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.

Docket:  All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.  Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form.  Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800
Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland, 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marilyn Powers,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

 What Action Is EPA Proposing?

What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plans (FIP)?

What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

Analysis of Maryland’s CAIR SIP Submittal

	A.  State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

	B.  CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

	C.  Applicability Provisions for Non-Electric Generating Units
(non-EGU) Sources

	D.  NOX Allowance Allocations

	E.  Allocation of NOX Allowances from Compliance Supplement Pool

 	F.  Individual Opt-in Units

         G.  Clarification of Other Provisions in Maryland’s CAIR Rule

VI.	Proposed Action

VII. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

  What Action Is EPA Proposing?

EPA is proposing to approve, as interpreted and clarified herein, the
full CAIR SIP revisions, submitted by Maryland on October 24, 2007 and
June 30, 2008, as meeting the applicable CAIR requirements by requiring
certain electric generating units (EGUs) to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs addressing SO2, NOX annual,
and NOX ozone season emissions.  The October 24, 2007 SIP revision
consisted of new Maryland rule COMAR 26.11.28 – Clean Air Interstate
Rule (Maryland revision #07-14).  The June 30, 2008 SIP revision
consisted of revisions to Regulations .01 to .07 of COMAR 26.11.28
(Maryland revision #08-08).

II.  What is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs)?

EPA published CAIR on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162).   In this rule, EPA
determined that 28 States and the District of Columbia contribute
significantly to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone in downwind States
in the eastern part of the country.  As a result, EPA required those
upwind States to revise their SIPs to include control measures that
reduce emissions of SO2, which is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or
NOX, which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation.  For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5
nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual State-wide emission
reduction requirements for NOX.  Similarly, for jurisdictions that
contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone nonattainment, CAIR sets
State-wide emission reduction requirements or budgets for NOX for the
ozone season (May 1st to September 30th).  Under CAIR, States may
implement these reduction requirements by participating in the
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by adopting any other control
measures.

CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to address
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with
regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA made national findings, effective on May 25, 2005,
that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D).  The SIPs were due in July 2000, three years after
the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.  These findings
started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D).  Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA
may issue a FIP anytime after such findings are made and must do so
within two years unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is
approved by EPA before the FIP is promulgated.

On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by CAIR
in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule.  The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season trading
programs, as appropriate.  The CAIR FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as, and
are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs.  The
integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these trading
programs will work together to create effectively a single trading
program for each regulated pollutant (SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season) in all States covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for
that pollutant.  Further, as provided in  a rule published by EPA on
November 2, 2007, a State’s CAIR FIPs are automatically withdrawn when
EPA approves a SIP revision, in its entirely and without any conditions,
as fully meeting the requirements of CAIR.  Where only portions of the
SIP revision are approved, the corresponding portions of the FIPs are
automatically withdrawn and the remaining portions of the FIP stay in
place.  Fnally, the CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated
SIP revisions that, if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or
supplement certain CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for
allocating NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.

On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final rules
that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of States
subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA’s final decisions on
reconsideration of five issues, without making any substantive changes
to the CAIR requirements.

On October 19, 2007, EPA amended CAIR and the CAIR FIPs to clarify the
definition of “cogeneration unit” and thus the applicability of the
CAIR trading program to cogeneration units.

EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and on
July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and the
associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety.  North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d
836 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 11, 2008).  However, in response to EPA's petition
for rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs.   North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2008).  The Court thereby left CAIR in place in
order to “temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by
CAIR” until EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the Court’s
opinion.  Id. at 1178.  The Court directed EPA to "remedy CAIR’s
flaws" consistent with its July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose
a schedule on EPA for completing that action.  Id.  Therefore, CAIR and
the CAIR FIP are currently in effect in Maryland.

III.  What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and NOX and is to
be implemented in two phases.  The first phase of NOX reductions starts
in 2009 and continues through 2014, while the first phase of SO2
reductions starts in 2010 and continues through 2014.  The second phase
of reductions for both NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter.  CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
(1) requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade
programs; or (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing
and demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance
with the applicable State SO2 and NOX budgets.

The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules that
States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if they
want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.  With two
exceptions, only States that choose to meet the requirements of CAIR
through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are allowed to
participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.  One exception is
for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model rules to allow
non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered trading programs.
 The other exception is for States that include all non-EGUs from their
NOX SIP Call trading programs in their CAIR NOX ozone season trading
programs.

IV.  What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they
will use to meet the requirements of CAIR.  EPA anticipates that most
States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an option
that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs.  For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP revisions.
 States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model CAIR
cap-and-trade rules.  If approved, these SIP revisions will fully
replace the CAIR FIPs.  Alternatively, States may submit abbreviated SIP
revisions.  These SIP revisions will not replace the CAIR FIPs; however,
the CAIR FIPs provide that, when approved, the provisions in these
abbreviated SIP revisions will be used instead of or in conjunction
with, as appropriate, the corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs
(e.g., the NOX allowance allocation methodology).

A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations that
are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by
reference the model rules.  CAIR provides that States may only make
limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in
the EPA-administered trading programs.  A full SIP revision may change
the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance
allocation provisions to:

Include all NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not EGUs under CAIR in
the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program;

Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual or ozone season allowances
using a methodology chosen by the State;

Provide for State allocation of  NOX annual allowances from the
compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State’s choice of  allowed,
alternative methodologies; or

Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt individually into
the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or NOX ozone season trading programs under the
opt-in provisions in the model rules.

An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs’ SO2, NOX annual,
or NOX ozone season emissions will replace the CAIR FIP for that State
for the respective EGU emissions.  As discussed above, EPA approval in
full, without any conditions, of a CAIR full SIP revision causes the
CAIR FIPs to be automatically withdrawn.

V.  Analysis of Maryland’s CAIR SIP Submittal

A.  State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were developed from
historical heat input data for EGUs.  Using these data, EPA calculated
annual and ozone season regional heat input values, which were
multiplied by 0.15 lb/mmBtu, for phase I, and 0.125 lb/mmBtu, for phase
II, to obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively.  EPA derived the State NOX annual and ozone
season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat input data
adjusted by fuel factors.

The CAIR State SO2 budgets were derived by discounting the tonnage of
emissions authorized by annual allowance allocations under the Acid Rain
Program under title IV of the CAA.  Under CAIR, each allowance allocated
in the Acid Rain Program for the years in phase 1 of CAIR (2010 through
2014) authorizes 0.5 ton of SO2 emissions in the CAIR trading program,
and each Acid Rain Program allowance allocated for the years in phase 2
of CAIR (2015 and thereafter) authorizes 0.35 ton of SO2 emissions in
the CAIR trading program.

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to approve a Maryland SIP
revisions that adopts by reference the budgets established for the State
in CAIR.  These budgets are 27,724 tons for NOX annual emissions from
2009 through 2014, and 23,104 tons from 2015 and thereafter; 12,834 tons
for NOX ozone season emissions from 2009 through 2014, and 10,695 tons
from 2015 and thereafter; and 70,697 tons for SO2 annual emissions from
2009 through 2014, and 49,488 tons from 2015 and thereafter.
Maryland’s SIP revisions set these budgets as the total amounts of
allowances available for allocation for each year under the
EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs.

EPA notes that, in North Carolina, 531 F.3d at 916-21, the Court
determined, among other things, that the State SO2 and NOX budgets
established in CAIR were arbitrary and capricious.  However, as
discussed above, the Court also decided to remand CAIR but to leave the
rule in place in order to “temporarily preserve the environmental
values covered by CAIR” pending EPA’s development and promulgation
of a replacement rule that remedies CAIR’s flaws.  North Carolina, 550
F.3d at 1178.   EPA had indicated to the Court that development and
promulgation of a replacement rule would take about two years.  Reply in
Support of Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing en Banc at 5 (filed Nov.
17, 2008 in North Carolina v. EPA, Case No. 05-1224, D.C. Cir.).  The
process at EPA of developing a proposal that will undergo notice and
comment and result in a final replacement rule is ongoing.  In the
meantime, consistent with the Court’s orders, EPA is implementing CAIR
by approving State SIP revisions that are consistent with CAIR (such as
the provisions setting State SO2 and NOX budgets for the CAIR trading
programs) in order to “temporarily preserve” the environmental
benefits achievable under the CAIR trading programs.

B.  CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season model trading rules both largely
mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model trading rule in 40 CFR
Part 96, subparts A through I.  While the provisions of the NOX annual
and ozone-season model rules are similar, there are some differences.
For example, the NOX annual model rule (but not the NOX ozone season
model rule) provides for a CSP, which is discussed below and under which
allowances may be awarded for early reductions of NOX annual emissions.
As a further example, the NOX ozone season model rule reflects the fact
that the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX SIP Call
trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated with the
NOX SIP Call program.  The NOX ozone season model rule provides
incentives for early emissions reductions by allowing banked, pre-2009
NOX SIP Call allowances to be used for compliance in the CAIR NOX
ozone-season trading program.  In addition, States have the option of
continuing to meet their NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in
the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program and including all their NOX
SIP Call trading sources in that program.

The provisions of the CAIR SO2 model rule are also similar to the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone season model rules.  However, the
SO2 model rule is coordinated with the ongoing Acid Rain SO2
cap-and-trade program under CAA title IV.  The SO2 model rule uses the
title IV allowances for compliance, with each allowance allocated for
2010-2014 authorizing only 0.50 ton of emissions and each allowance
allocated for 2015 and thereafter authorizing only 0.35 ton of
emissions.  Banked title IV allowances allocated for years before 2010
can be used at any time in the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program, with each
such allowance authorizing one ton of emissions.  Title IV allowances
are to be freely transferable among sources covered by the Acid Rain
Program and sources covered by the CAIR SO2 cap-and-trade program.

EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the trading
programs in the CAIR FIPs.  The CAIR FIP trading rules are virtually
identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made to account
for federal rather than state implementation.  The CAIR model SO2, NOX
annual, and NOX ozone season trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP
trading rules are designed to work together as integrated SO2, NOX
annual, and NOX ozone season trading programs.

In the SIP revisions, Maryland choose to implement its CAIR budgets by
requiring EGUs to participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs
for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season emissions.  Maryland has
adopted a full CAIR SIP revision that incorporates by reference the CAIR
model cap and trade rules for SO2, NOx annual, and NOx ozone season
emissions, with modifications as allowed under the flexibilities of the
program.

C.  Applicability Provisions for Non-Electric Generating Units (non-EGU)
Sources

In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or the
start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with nameplate
capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
Maryland’s CAIR rules incorporate by reference the CAIR model trading
rule applicability described in 40 CFR 96.104, 96.204 and 96.304.

States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX ozone season
program only, those units in the State's NOX SIP Call trading program
that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR.  EPA advises States exercising
this option to add the applicability provisions in the State's NOX SIP
Call trading rule for non-EGUs to the applicability provisions in 40 CFR
96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program
all units required to be in the State's NOX SIP Call trading program
that are not already included under 40 CFR 96.304.  Under this option,
the CAIR NOX ozone season program must cover all large industrial
boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units
serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that
the State currently requires to be in the NOX SIP Call trading program.

Maryland has chosen not to expand the applicability provisions of the
CAIR NOX ozone season trading program to include all non-EGUs in the
State’s NOX SIP Call trading program.  Therefore, Maryland must, in a
separate submission, demonstrate that it is meeting 40 CFR 51.121(f)(2)
and (h)(4), which sets forth requirements for control measures or  other
regulatory requirement(s) to demonstrate that the State will comply with
its NOx budget as established for the 2007 ozone season. Continuous
emissions monitoring (CEMS) in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75 is
required.

D.  NOX Allowance Allocations

Under the NOX allowance allocation methodology in the CAIR model trading
rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and ozone season allowances are
allocated to units that have operated for five years, based on heat
input data from a three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by
using fuel factors of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other
fuels.  The CAIR model trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new
unit set-aside from which units without five years of operation are
allocated allowances based on the units’ prior year emissions.

States may establish in their SIP submissions a different NOX allowance
allocation methodology that will be used to allocate allowances to
sources in the States if certain requirements are met concerning the
timing of submission of units’ allocations to the Administrator for
recordation and the total amount of allowances allocated for each
control period.   In adopting alternative NOX allowance allocation
methodologies, States have flexibility with regard to:

The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be distributed for
free or auctioned;

The frequency of allocations;

The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed, for
example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal output;
and

The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.

Maryland has chosen to incorporate by reference the allowance allocation
methodology of the model rule for both the NOx annual and NOx ozone
season trading programs, with the exception of the provisions pertaining
to the distribution of allowances from the set aside pool under
96.142(d).  Maryland has established a set-aside of five percent of the
NOx ozone season allowance budget for each control period during 2009
through 2014, and a set aside of five percent of the NOx Annual
allowance budget for each control period 2009 through 2014.   The
allowances from these set-aside pools will be distributed to new
affected units, with any remaining allowances to be distributed to
renewable energy projects and consumers of electric power in the State.
At the end of each control period, 20 percent of unused allowances from
the set asides will be transferred to the State’s retirement account
in the CAIR allowance tracking system, and 80 percent of unused
allowances will be returned to the affected trading sources listed in
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.

E.  Allocation of NOX Allowances from Compliance Supplement Pool

The CAIR establishes a CSP to provide an incentive for early reductions
in NOX annual emissions.  The CSP consists of 200,000 CAIR NOX annual
allowances of vintage 2009 for the entire CAIR region, and a State’s
share of the CSP is based upon the projected magnitude of the emission
reductions required by CAIR in that State.  States may distribute CSP
allowances, one allowance for each ton of early reduction, to sources
that make NOX reductions during 2007 or 2008 beyond what is required by
any applicable State or Federal emission limitation.  States also may
distribute CSP allowances based upon a demonstration of need for an
extension of the 2009 deadline for implementing emission controls.  The
CSP for the State of Maryland is comprised of 4,670 allowances.

The CAIR annual NOX model trading rule establishes specific
methodologies for allocations of CSP allowances.  States may choose an
allowed, alternative CSP allocation methodology to be used to allocate
CSP allowances to sources in the States.

 The deadline for requesting the CSP allowances was May 1, 2009,
therefore, the CSP allowances will be distributed under the provisions
of the CAIR FIP for the sources in the State of Maryland.  EPA is,
therefore, not approving the CSP allocation contained in Maryland’s
CAIR SIP.

F.  Individual Opt-in Units

The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow certain
non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other stationary
fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the applicability criteria
for a CAIR trading program to participate voluntarily in (i.e., opt
into) the CAIR trading program.  A non-EGU may opt into one or more of
the CAIR trading programs.  In order to qualify to opt into a CAIR
trading program, a unit must vent all emissions through a stack and be
able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and recording requirements of 40
CFR part 75.  The owners and operators seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR
trading program must apply for a CAIR opt-in permit.  If the unit is
issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated
allowances, and must meet the same allowance-holding and emissions
monitoring and reporting requirements as other units subject to the CAIR
trading program.   The opt-in provisions provide for two methodologies
for allocating allowances for opt-in units, one methodology that applies
to opt-in units in general and a second methodology that allocates
allowances only to opt-in units that the owners and operators intend to
repower before January 1, 2015.

States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.  States
may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them but
exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances.  States may
also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.  Maryland has chosen
to incorporate by reference the provisions of the model rule pertaining
to opt-ins for the NOx annual, NOx ozone season, and SO2 annual trading
program.

G.  Clarification of Other Provisions in Maryland’s CAIR Rule

1.  2009 CAIR NOx Annual and CAIR NOx Ozone Season Allowances

The tables in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> specify allowances for 2009 – 2014.
Maryland anticipated that its CAIR SIP would be in effect in time to
issue the allowances for this allocation period.   However, Maryland
sources are currently subject to the FIP, therefore allocations for 2009
have been distributed under the FIP provisions.  As a consequence, EPA
is not approving Maryland’s 2009 CAIR NOx Annual and CAIR NOx Ozone
Season allowance allocation contained in the Maryland CAIR SIP.  The
tables in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> will be used starting in 2010, contingent on
finalization of this proposed action.

2. Deadline for Requests for Allowances from the Set Aside Pool

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A(1) sets “March 15 of the year following the year
the unit began commercial operation …” as the date by which the
owner or operator of a “new affected trading unit” may request
allowances from the set aside pool.  Because this schedule is different
from the schedule in 40 CFR 96.142(c)(2) and 40 CFR 96. 342(c)(2) which
are incorporated by reference, EPA clarifies that the schedule
established in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>A(1) applies to sources in Maryland.

3. Schedule for Recording Set Aside Pool Allowances

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>G establishes a July 1 deadline for EPA to transfer NOx
allowances for renewable energy projects to a general account for the
owner or operator of a renewable energy project.  Although not addressed
in this provision, the owner or operator of the renewable energy project
is responsible for establishing the general account in accordance with
40 CFR 96.151 and 96.152, or 96.351 and 96.352.  Also, these accounts
will need to be established sufficiently in advance of the July 1
deadline to ensure timely allowance transfers to the appropriate general
accounts.  EPA notes that the allocation information from the State must
be received approximately two weeks before the deadline to give the
Agency time to process the information and meet the July 1 deadline for
recording the allowances.

4. Interaction of Maryland’s CAIR Rule with COMAR 26.11.27

COMAR 26.11.27, entitled “Emission Limitations for Power Plants,”
was adopted by Maryland to implement the emission reductions required by
the State’s Healthy Air Act (Annotated Code of Maryland Environment
Title 2 Ambient Air Quality Control Subtitle 10 Health Air Act Sections
2-1001 – 2-1005), and sets emissions caps for fifteen of the largest
coal-fired power plants in the State.  All of these sources are also
subject to CAIR.

COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>B(7)(a)(iii) requires that, if a unit exceeds its Ozone
Season NOx tonnage limitation as a result of certain specified actions
and alerts invoked by the independent system operator PJM
Interconnection, LLC (PJM), the unit is not in violation if, among other
things, the owner or operator surrenders one “ozone season NOx
allowances” to the State’s surrender account for every ton of NOx
emitted in excess of the cap.  EPA interprets the reference to “ozone
season NOx allowance” to mean CAIR NOx ozone season allowances because
the NOx Budget Trading Program was discontinued in 2008, and all banked
ozone season NOx allowances from that program have been converted to
CAIR NOx ozone season allowances.

An owner or operator is required to surrender CAIR NOx ozone season
allowances under this provision only if PJM invokes certain specified
actions and alerts and the unit's emissions increase as a result.  Since
1999, PJM has invoked these actions and alerts relatively few times
(generally a few times a year but up to 22 times in one year) and only
for relatively short periods of time (generally about 24 hours and only
once slightly exceeding 48 hours).  However, the majority of these
actions and alerts involve load reductions and so are not likely to
result in increased emissions that would force a facility to exceed its
Ozone Season NOx tonnage limitation. Therefore, EPA believes that the
potential for CAIR allowances to be used outside of the CAIR trading
programs is very limited and will not interfere to any significant
extent with the CAIR trading programs.

 VI.	Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve, as interpreted and clarified herein,
Maryland’s full CAIR SIP revisions submitted on October 24, 2007, and
June 30, 2008, except for the 2009 NOx ozone season and NOx annual
allocations, the 2009 set aside allocations and the CSP allocations.
Under the SIP revisions, Maryland is choosing to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade programs for SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season emissions.  The SIP revisions, as interpreted and
clarified herein, meets the applicable requirements of CAIR, which are
set forth in 40 CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to NOX annual and
NOX ozone season emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with regard to SO2
emissions.  Upon final approval, the CAIR FIP for Maryland will be
automatically withdrawn.

VII. 	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations.  42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).  Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.  Accordingly,
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law.  For that reason, this action:

is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993);

does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);

does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);

is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211
(66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the
Clean Air Act; and

does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed approval of Maryland’s CAIR rule, with
certain exceptions, does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides.

__August 10, 2009_____
___________/s/_______________

Dated:                                				William C. Early,

                                      				Acting Regional Administrator,

                                      				Region III.

1 The Court also determined that the CAIR trading programs were unlawful
(id. at 906-8) and that the treatment of title IV allowances in CAIR was
unlawful (id. at 921-23).  For the same reasons that EPA is approving
the provisions of Maryland’s SIP revision that use the SO2 and NOX
budgets set in CAIR, EPA is also approving, as discussed below,
Maryland’s SIP revision to the extent the SIP revision adopts the CAIR
trading programs, including the provisions addressing applicability,
allowance allocations, and use of title IV allowances.

 Maryland anticipated that its CAIR SIP would be in effect in time to
issue allocations from its set aside pool starting in 2009.  Because the
CAIR FIP is still in effect in Maryland, allocations from the new unit
set aside have been allocated under the FIP for 2009.  As a consequence,
EPA is not approving the allowance allocations for new units, renewable
energy projects and consumers of electric energy contained in
Maryland’s CAIR SIP for 2009.   Those allocations will be issued in
accordance with Maryland’s CAIR SIP starting in 2010, contingent upon
finalization of this proposed action.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2

 PAGE  24


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46548-46549]
[DOCID:fr11au08-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0178; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-20-AD;
Amendment 39-15622; AD 2008-16-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC)
Model 222, 222B, and 222U Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for BHTC
Model 222, 222B, and 222U helicopters. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The aviation authority of Canada,
with which we have a bilateral agreement, states in the MCAI: ``It has
been determined that the existing rigging procedures for the tail rotor
pitch change mechanism have to be changed due to possibility of parts
interference.'' The cumulative effect of individual part tolerances
resulting in the total assemblage of those parts being out of tolerance
could result in the tail rotor yoke striking another part other than
the flapping stop (parts interference) cited in the MCAI. Also, the
misalignment of the tail rotor counterweight bellcrank may result in
higher tail rotor pedal forces and a higher pilot workload after
failure of the No. 1 hydraulic system. Both parts interference and the
misaligned counterweight bellcrank create an unsafe condition.
    We are issuing this AD to require actions that are intended to
address these unsafe conditions.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on September 15, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 15,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations office, U.S.
Department of Transportation, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may get the service information identified in this AD from Bell
Helicopter Textron, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Examining the AD Docket: The AD docket contains the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the economic evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address and operating hours
for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) are in the
ADDRESSES section of this AD. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after they are received.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyrone Millard, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, Fort
Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to the following BHTC helicopters:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Model                          Serial No. (S/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
222.......................................  47006 through 47089.
222B......................................  47131 through 47156.
222U......................................  All.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2007
(72 FR 64542). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for
the specified products. The MCAI states: ``It has been determined that
the existing rigging procedures for the tail rotor pitch change
mechanism have to be changed due to possibility of parts
interference.'' Because the cumulative effect of the tolerances on the
various parts may result in the total assemblage outboard of the
counterweight bellcrank being out of tolerance, the tail rotor yoke may
contact the nut, part number (P/N) 222-012-731-001, before contacting
the flapping stop, resulting in less tail rotor travel. Additionally,
the manufacturer has indicated that the tail rotor counterweight
bellcranks may be misaligned, resulting in higher tail rotor pedal
forces and higher pilot workload after failure of the 1
hydraulic system. Both the parts interference and the higher pedal
forces constitute unsafe conditions. You may obtain further information
by examining the MCAI and any related service information in the AD
docket.

Comments

    By publishing the NPRM, we gave the public an opportunity to
participate in developing this AD. However, we received no comment on
the NPRM or on our determination of the cost to the public. Therefore,
based on our review and evaluation of the available data, we have
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD as proposed.

Relevant Service Information

    Bell Helicopter Textron has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
222-07-104 and ASB No. 222U-07-75, both dated January 9, 2007. The
actions described in the MCAI are intended to correct the same unsafe
condition as that identified in the service information.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI AD

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. However, this AD requires
compliance within the next 150 hours time-in-service or at the next
annual inspection, whichever occurs first, instead of ``at the next 150
hour or annual inspection, but no later than 31 December 2007.'' In
making this change, we do not intend to differ substantively from the
information provided in the MCAI. This difference is highlighted in the
``Differences Between this AD and the MCAI'' section in the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 86 products of U.S.
registry. Also, we estimate that it will take 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $80 per work-hour. A replacement yoke will cost about $21,218,
assuming the part is no longer under warranty. However, because the
service information lists this part as covered under warranty, we have
assumed that there will be no charge for this part. Therefore, as we do
not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $13,760, or $160
per helicopter.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
Requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on product(s) identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect 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.
    Therefore, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-16-04 Bell Helicopter Textron Canada: Amendment 39-15622;
Docket No. FAA-2007-0178; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-20-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective on
September 15, 2008.

Other Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the Model 222, serial numbers (S/N) 47006
through 47089; Model 222B, S/N 47131 through 47156, and Model 222U,
all S/N, helicopters, certificated in any category.

Reason

    (d) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states: ``It has been determined that the existing rigging
procedures for the tail rotor pitch change mechanism have to be
changed due to possibility of parts interference.'' This
``possibility of parts interference'' occurs because the cumulative
effect of the tolerances on the various parts may result in the
total assemblage outboard of the counterweight bellcrank being out
of tolerance and the tail rotor yoke may contact the nut, part
number (P/N) 222-012-731-001, before contacting the flapping stop.
Further, the manufacturer has indicated that the tail rotor
counterweight bellcranks may be misaligned, resulting in higher tail
rotor pedal forces and higher pilot workload after failure of the
1 hydraulic system. Both the parts interference and the
higher pedal forces constitute unsafe conditions. This AD requires
actions that are intended to address these unsafe conditions.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Within the next 150 hours time-in-service (TIS) or at the
next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, unless already done,
do the following actions:
    (1) Adjust the rigging of the tail rotor pitch change mechanism
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 1 and
2, of the applicable Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) listed in the following Table 1:

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Helicopter model                 Applicable ASB No. & date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
222 and 222B..............................  No. 222-07-104, dated
                                             January 9, 2007.
222U......................................  No. 222U-07-75, dated
                                             January 9, 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) If either at full left pedal position or full right pedal
position a gap exists between the tail rotor yoke and the flapping
stop, replace the tail rotor yoke with an airworthy tail rotor yoke.
    (3) If no gap exists between the tail rotor yoke and the
flapping stop at either full left pedal position or full right pedal
position, measure the gap between the tail rotor yoke and nut, P/N
222-012-731-001, adjust the tail rotor pitch change mechanism, and
adjust the tail rotor pedal forces in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 4 through 6, of the
applicable ASB listed in Table 1 of this AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI

    (f) This AD requires compliance within the next 150 hours TIS or
at the next annual inspection, whichever occurs first, instead of
``at the next 150 hour or annual inspection but no later than 31
December 2007.''

Other Information

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Safety Management Group, FAA, ATTN: Tyrone Millard, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff,
Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (817)
222-5961 has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive No. CF-2007-
07, dated April 11, 2007, contains related information.

Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Tracking Code

    (i) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code JASC 6720:
Tail Rotor Control System, Tail Rotor Pitch Change.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use the specified portions of Bell Helicopter
Textron ASB No. 222-07-104 or No. 222U-07-75, both dated January 9,
2007, to do the actions required.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron Canada, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec
J7J1R4, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax (450) 433-
0272.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas
76193; or at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 18, 2008.
Mark R. Schilling,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-17991 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 41709]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14918]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2284-000]

Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, 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
Black Bear Alabama Solar Tenant, 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 July 27, 2022.
    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: July 7, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-14918 Filed 7-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28259-28263]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12771]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9995-25-Region 9]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the MGM Brakes Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete MGM Brakes Superfund Site (Site) located
in Cloverdale, Sonoma County, California, from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. 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). The EPA and the State of
California, through the Department of Toxic Substances Control, have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.

DATES: Comments must be received by July 18, 2019.

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 online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Olivia Trombadore, Remedial Project Manager, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD-9-2, 75 Hawthorne St.,
San Francisco, CA, 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand delivery: Olivia Trombadore, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD-9-2, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA, 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov website is
an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through 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 and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Regional Records
Center, 75 Hawthorne Street, Room 3110, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415)
947-8717, Monday-Thursday: 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

Or:

Sonoma County Library, Headquarters, 6135 State Farm Drive, Rohnert
Park, California,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Call for hours of operation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olivia Trombadore, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, SFD-9-2, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA, 94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 9 announces its intent to delete the MGM Brakes
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comment on this proposed action. 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). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,
sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
    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 MGM Brakes Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. all appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.

    (4) The State of California, through the Department of Toxic
Substances Control, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the
NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Coverdale Reveille. The newspaper notice announces
the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to
Delete the site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, EPA
will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if EPA determines
it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional Administrator
will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Public
notices, public submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary,
if prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the
site information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

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

Site Background and History

    MGM Brakes Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID: CAD000074120) was proposed
to the National Priorities List (NPL) on 12/30/1982 (47 FR 58476), and
finalized on 9/08/1983 (48 FR 40658). The Site is approximately 5-acres
and is located in the City of Cloverdale, Sonoma County, California at
1201 South Cloverdale Boulevard. It is bounded on the south by light
industrial facilities, including a beer brewing company and on the west
by a vehicle storage yard. In May 1990, a Remedial Design/Remedial
Action Consent Decree (CD) was entered into by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) TBG Inc. and Indian Head Industries, Inc. The CD defines
the ``Site'' as Assessor's Parcels Numbers (APN) 38, 39, and 45 and
portions of adjacent Parcels 62, 63, 71, and 72. Since the CD was
issued, parcels 71 and 72 were subdivided and reassigned APNs 117-040-
090, 117-040-093, 117-340-001 through 117-340-012, and 117-340-COM.
    From 1962 until operations ceased in 1982, the MGM Brakes facility
manufactured and cast aluminum brake components for large motor
vehicles. The facility consisted of a casting plant building, seven
above ground storage tanks, a cooling tower, and a storage shed. From
1965 until 1972, hydraulic fluids containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) were used in the casting machines. These hydraulic fluids leaked
from the casting machines in the normal course of the plant's
operations and were then collected in floor drains, together with water
used to cool the dies between castings. Following gravity separation of
oils and grease, the wastewater containing PCBs was discharged, via a
drain line, to the ground adjacent to the casting plant. The practice
of discharging wastewater onto the vacant fields surrounding the
casting plant building is believed to be the main cause of PCB
contamination at the Site.
    PCB contamination was detected in surface water runoff, surface and
subsurface soil, and inside the casting plant building. During
investigations conducted from 1983 to 1988 volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) were detected in groundwater. The detected VOCs were benzene,
chlorobenzene, cis-1,2- dichloroethylene, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,1-
dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene (TCE), and vinyl
chloride. TCE was the predominant VOC, as it was detected more
frequently than other VOCs and at the highest concentrations.
    Remedial actions for PCBs began in 1993 and included equipment
removal, building demolition, concrete slab removal, removal of below-
grade structures, and soil excavation. The soil excavation and backfill
work was completed in 1994.
    Remedial actions for the VOC-contaminated groundwater included
installation of groundwater monitoring wells and monitored natural
attenuation. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in 1994 and
groundwater monitoring was conducted from 1995 through 2013. All
groundwater monitoring wells were removed by 2017 following the
attainment of groundwater restoration cleanup levels for TCE.
    The MGM Brakes site is not currently developed. However, in January
2018 the EPA included the MGM Brakes site on the Superfund
Redevelopment Focus List and stated the site was ``Ready for Reuse''.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/
FS) from 1983 to 1988. The EPA conducted limited field investigations
during the course of evaluating remedial alternatives. The original FS
was initiated in 1985 and released in 1986. The original FS identified
incineration as the EPA's preferred alternative for removing PCBs. Due
to strong opposition to incineration, as well as other comments
submitted during the public comment period, EPA decided to prepare a
revised FS. In May 1988, EPA released the revised FS which evaluated a
list of alternatives including capping, excavation and on-site
fixation, in-situ fixation, on-site incineration, and excavation and
off-site disposal. The preferred remedy, as stated in the May 1988
Proposed Plan, was excavation and off-site disposal of PCBs. No adverse
comments were received during the public comment period regarding this
remedy.
    The remedial action objective (RAO) for PCB contaminated soils was
to reduce the present and future on-site risk to human health and the
environment to a 1 x 10-\5\ (1 in 100,000) cancer risk and
provide unrestricted future use of the Site. RAOs also required
restoration of groundwater to appropriate maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) or other health-based standard such that the total risk will not
exceed 10-\6\.

Selected Remedy

    In September 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) which
selected as the Site remedy excavation and off-site disposal of soils
with PCB concentrations above 10 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg);
demolition of the casting plant; and decontamination of PCB
contaminated equipment and materials. In addition, PCBs in surface soil
(defined as the uppermost 10 inches) could not exceed 1 mg/kg. The 1988
ROD also called for further investigation of the VOC-contaminated
groundwater and restoration of

groundwater within the Site boundaries to appropriate MCLs. The
specific groundwater cleanup option was to be determined as a part of
the remedial design. The 1988 ROD stated that the selected remedies
were intended to reduce the present and future on-site risk to human
health and the environment to a 1 x 10-\5\ (1 in 100,000)
cancer risk and provide unrestricted future use of the property. This
was to be achieved by removing and disposing of all soil exceeding a
PCB concentration of 10 mg/kg. The 1988 ROD also required restoration
of groundwater within the Site boundary to appropriate MCLs such that
the total risk would not exceed 1 x 10-\6\.
    In 1995 EPA issued an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
that selected monitored natural attenuation (MNA) as the groundwater
remedy and established Federal MCLs as the cleanup levels. The 1995 ESD
also revised the soil remedy to allow bedrock (deeper than 15 feet and
below ground surface (bgs)) with PCB concentrations greater than 10 mg/
kg and less than 100 mg/kg to be left in place and added the
requirement for land use restrictions. A Covenant and Agreement to
Restrict Use of Certain Property (1995 Covenant) was recorded in Sonoma
County in July 1995 to restrict use of certain portions of the Site.
The 1995 Covenant prohibited excavation of more than 1 cubic yard of
soil from a depth greater than 15 feet bgs without following specific
protocols set forth in the 1995 Covenant.
    In the 2013 Five Year Review (2013 FYR) EPA determined that the
site qualified for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In 2016 EPA
issued a second ESD that removed the requirement for land use
restrictions based on the 2013 FYR determination. The 2016 ESD noted
that land use controls (LUCs) were included in a new Covenant and
Environmental Restrictions on Property (2016 Covenant), recorded in
Sonoma County on March 25, 2016. The 2016 Covenant is not incorporated
into the Superfund remedy.

Remedial Actions

    The remedial actions were implemented pursuant to the ROD, CD, and
ESD. For the PCB-contaminated soil remedy, EPA determined that building
demolition must be performed to access the contaminated soil, concrete
beneath the casting plant building, and other structures. Equipment was
removed from the building and, except for one piece, was disposed of
off-site with demolition debris. One piece of equipment was
decontaminated, documented as clean using wipe samples, and moved to a
different facility. Demolition of the structure began in April 1992 and
was completed in May 1992. The building debris was sampled for PCBs,
found to be hazardous waste and subsequently shipped off-site to a
permitted disposal facility, Kettleman Hills Class I Landfill.
    The excavation work performed to remove and dispose of PCB-
contaminated soil began in June 1993. Soils contaminated above 10 mg/kg
were excavated to a depth of at least five feet for most of the Site,
with limited highly contaminated areas being excavated to 29 feet; as
noted above, a limited volume of deeper soil contained more than 10 mg/
kg and less than 100 mg/kg PCBs. There were several below-grade
structures that were removed as part of this excavation work. These
included a small underground storage tank, two concrete sumps, three
concrete pipes, and other associated underground piping.
    Upon completion of the excavation and backfilling, stockpiled soil,
debris, and other appurtenances were removed from the Site and disposed
of at the appropriate facilities. All excavation field work was
completed by June 1994.
    For the VOC-contaminated groundwater remedy, construction
activities included installation of groundwater monitoring wells.

Cleanup Levels

Monitoring for PCBs in Soil and Surface Water Runoff
    Soil sampling and analysis for PCBs was conducted in and around the
excavation to monitor the progress and establish extent of the
excavation. The entire Site was divided into grid blocks 12.5 feet on
each horizontal side by two feet vertically. Each grid block was given
a unique identification number. Soil samples collected from the grid
blocks were analyzed in an on-site mobile laboratory that provided
screening results. A California certified laboratory was used to
analyze all surface soil samples and splits of at least 20% of the
samples. The verification analysis indicated that PCBs were less than
or equal to the remedial clean up goal. For a minimum of 10% of the
soil samples sent to the off-site laboratory, an EPA split soil sample
was analyzed by EPA's contract laboratory. The data from screening
analyses and verification analyses for PCBs in soil met the quality
assurance and quality control goals set forth in the Remedial Action
Quality Assurance Project Plan.
    Soil was excavated from grids where screening analyses indicated
that PCB concentrations were higher than the remedial goals, except for
several grids where samples were collected from bedrock in the bottom
of the excavation. As noted above, the 1995 ESD revised the soil remedy
to allow these few grids to remain.
    In accordance with the Final Excavation Monitoring Plan, post-
construction surface runoff samples were collected at three locations
on and near the Site within 24 hours of any rainfall event producing
1.0 inch or more of precipitation in a 24-hour period, as measured by
the Cloverdale Fire Department. Forty-seven post-construction
monitoring surface runoff samples were collected after completion of
the excavation work. PCBs were not detected in any of the surface water
runoff samples at or above a detection limit of 0.25 [micro]g/L.
    In March 1998, the EPA provided a Certificate of Completion for the
demolition and excavation work, which documented EPA's conclusion that
all portions of the Remedial Action (RA) for soil were completed in
accordance with the ROD, CD, and ESD.
Investigation and Monitoring of Groundwater
    In accordance with the ROD and CD, the groundwater RA included
activities to locate the source of VOCs, and install additional wells
to evaluate the extent of VOC contamination and monitor groundwater.
Despite attempts to locate the source of VOC contamination in the
groundwater, no source was identified. As described above, the 1995 ESD
selected MNA as the groundwater remedy and defined a point of
compliance to ensure contaminants did not move beyond the Site boundary
at concentrations above MCLs. When the 1995 ESD was published, TCE was
the only contaminant which remained above its MCL.
    Groundwater monitoring for VOCs began in 1995 and continued through
2013 as follows:
     From 1995 through 1999, groundwater samples were collected
from 12 wells and analyzed for VOCs. In addition, PCBs and semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOC) analyses were performed in 1998 and
1999. With EPA concurrence, one groundwater monitoring well was
abandoned. The well was abandoned under permit from the Sonoma County
Department of Environmental Health (SCDEH).
     From 2000 through 2006, groundwater samples were collected
from 11 wells and analyzed for VOCs. In 2006, EPA approved the
abandonment of nine wells at the Site.

The wells were abandoned under permit from SCDEH.
     From 2006 through 2013 groundwater samples were collected
from the two remaining wells, B-50 and B-73. The groundwater samples
were analyzed for VOCs. In April 2017, after the attainment of TCE MCLs
and with EPA concurrence, both wells were abandoned under permit from
SCDEH.
    The Final Groundwater Monitoring Report, was prepared after the
2013 sampling events. As described in the Draft Revised Final Remedy
Certification Report for the VOC Groundwater Work, per 2014 EPA
guidance, analysis of contaminant-specific data from the MGM Brakes
Site provided a technical and scientific basis that:
    1. The MCL for TCE was met in both remaining wells; and,
    2. The groundwater would continue to meet the MCL for TCE in both
remaining wells in the future.
    In February 2018, the EPA provided a Certificate of Completion for
the VOC Groundwater Work, which documented EPA's concurrence that all
portions of the RA for groundwater were completed in accordance with
the ROD, CD and ESD.

Operation and Maintenance

    There are no ongoing monitoring activities for soil or groundwater.
The 2016 ESD removed the requirement for institutional controls. There
are no operation and maintenance activities required.

Five Year Review

    The Third Five-Year Review Report for MGM Brakes Superfund Site,
Cloverdale California, September 2013 (Third FYR) was the last five-
year review completed at the Site. The Third FYR concluded that the
Site remedy is protective of human health and the environment and that
there are no issues that affect protectiveness in the short- or long-
term. Furthermore, an evaluation completed during the Third FYR, and
documented in the 2016 ESD, concluded that hazardous substances and
pollutants had been removed to safe levels and that the site qualified
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Future FYRs are not
required.

Community Involvement

    The community has been involved in the MGM Brakes Superfund Cleanup
throughout the remedial process. Comments were submitted in strong
opposition to the original remedy suggested by the feasibility study in
1986. These comments were taken into consideration and EPA prepared a
revised FS in May 1988 evaluating a list of alternative remedies,
ultimately resulting in a different remedy for the Site. No adverse
comments were received during the public comment period regarding this
remedy.

Determine That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    In March 1998, the EPA provided a Certificate of Completion for the
demolition and excavation work, which documented EPA's concurrence that
all portions of the RA for soil were completed in accordance with the
ROD, CD, and ESD. In February 2018, the EPA provided a Certificate of
Completion for the VOC Groundwater Work, which documented EPA's
concurrence that all portions of the RA for groundwater were completed
in accordance with the ROD, CD and ESD. In the Third FYR and the 2016
ESD, EPA concluded that hazardous substances and pollutants had been
removed to safe levels and that the site qualified for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure.
    In February 2018, the Regional Water Quality Control Board of
California determined that no further action (NFA) was required at the
MGM Brakes Superfund Site located at 1201 South Cloverdale Boulevard,
Cloverdale, California. A letter documenting the NFA status is included
in the deletion docket. In December 2018 the Department of Toxic
Substances Control issued a letter concurring with EPA's proposed
deletion of the MGM Brakes Site from the National Priorities List. This
letter is also included in the deletion docket.
    The implemented remedy at the MGM Brakes Superfund Site has
achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all exposure
pathways; and all selected remedial and removal action objectives and
associated cleanup levels are consistent with agency policy and
guidance. No further Superfund response is needed at the MGM Brakes
Superfund Site to protect human health and the environment.

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.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.

    Dated: April 30, 2019.
 Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2019-12771 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P