1 SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY NSPS SUBPART Ka STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR STORAGE VESSELS OF PETROLEUM LIQUIDS FOR WHICH CONSTRUCTION, RECONSTRUCTION OR MODIFICATION COMMENCED AFTER MAY 18, 1978 AND PRIOR TO JULY 23, 1984 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection NSPS Ka Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids for Which Construction, Reconstruction or Modification Commenced After May 18, 1978 and Prior to July 23, 1984.

1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract The New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Subpart Ka was proposed on May 18, 1978 and promulgated on April 4, 1980. These standards apply to the following facilities in Subpart Ka: Storage Vessels of petroleum liquids which has a storage capacity greater than 151,416 ( 40,000 gallons), and for which construction,

reconstruction or modification commenced after May 18, 1978 and prior to July 23,

1984.

Owners or operators of the affected facilities described must make one time only notifications including: notification of any physical or operational change to an existing facility which may increase the regulated pollutant emission rate, notification of the initial performance test; including information necessary to determine the conditions of 2 the performance test, and performance test measurements and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Measuring requirements specific to NSPS Subpart Ka provide information on the operation of the emissions control devices. These notifications, reports and records are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least two years. All reports are sent to the delegated State or local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

Prior to January 19, 2001, approximately 174 respondents were subject to the NSPS Subpart Ka. After that time, OMB approved the Consolidated Air Rule for the SOCMI Industry. It is estimated that 10% of the 174 respondents will take advantage of the new Rule. The number of respondents expected to adhere to NSPS Subpart Ka is 157. No new sources are expected to become subject to NSPS Subpart Ka. If any new sources become operational, they would be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb, the most recent volatile organic compound ( VOC) standard applicable to storage vessels. The annual cost of this ICR is $ 2,181,783.

The number of respondents was based upon an examination of Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS). The number of storage vessels will not increase due to the open and closed time frame of the regulations. There is the potential for a 3 decrease in the number of storage vessels. If an owner/ operator substantially modifies a storage vessel, it becomes subject the NSPS Subpart Kb. The owner/ operator is highly unlikely to exceed the modification requirements..

In general, all NSPS standards require initial notifications, performance tests,

and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative.

These notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining compliance, are required, in general, of all sources subject to NSPS.

Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of this information and retain the file for at least two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports, and records. All reports are sent to the delegated State or Local authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the reports are sent directly to the EPA Regional Office.

For the currently approved ICR by OMB there were no " Terms of Clearance".

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection The EPA is charged under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, as amended, to establish standards of performance for new stationary sources that reflect:

. . . application of the best technological system of continuous emissions reduction which ( taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 4 emissions reduction, or any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated [ Section 111( a)( l)].

The Agency refers to this charge as selecting the best demonstrated technology ( BDT). Section 111 also requires that the Administrator review and, if appropriate,

revise such standards every four years.

In addition, Section 114( a) states that the Administrator may require any owner or operator subject to any requirement of this Act to:

. . . ( A) establish and maintain such records; ( B) make such reports; ( C)

install, use and maintain such monitoring equipment, and use such audit procedures, or methods; ( D) sample such emissions ( in accordance with such procedures or methods, at such locations, at such intervals, during such periods, and in such a manner as the Administrator shall prescribe);

( E) keep records on control equipment parameters, production variables or other indirect data when direct monitoring of emissions is impractical;

( F) submit compliance certifications in accordance with section 114( a)( 3)

and, ( G) provide additional information as the Administrator may reasonably require.

In the Administrator's judgment, volatile organic compounds ( VOCs) emissions 5 from Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Therefore, the NSPS was promulgated for this source category at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ka.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The control of volatile organic emissions from NSPS Subpart Ka requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. For the most part, volatile organic emissions are the result of operation of petroleum storage vessels at petroleum refineries. These standards rely on the reduction of volatile organic emissions by either internal or external floating roofs or closed vent systems.

The required notifications are used to inform the Agency or delegated authority when a source becomes subject to the standard. The reviewing authority may then inspect the source to check if the floating roof or closed vent systems are properly installed and operated. Performance test reports are needed as these are the Agency's record of a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard,

and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. The information generated by the recordkeeping and reporting requirements described in this ICR is used by the Agency to ensure that facilities affected by the NSPS continue to operate the control equipment used to achieve compliance with the NSPS.

Adequate recordkeeping, and reporting is necessary to ensure compliance with these standards, as required by the Clean Air Act.

The information collected from recordkeeping and reporting requirements is also 6 used for targeting inspections, and is of sufficient quality to be used as evidence in court.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria The recordkeeping and reporting requested is required under 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Ka.

3( a) Nonduplication If the standard has not been delegated, the information would have been sent to the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Office. Otherwise, the information is sent directly to the delegated State or Local Agency. If a State or Local Agency has adopted their own similar regulation to implement the Federal Regulation,

a copy of the report submitted to the State or Local Agency can be sent to the Administrator in lieu of the report required by the Federal Standard. Therefore, no duplication exists.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register on December 22, 2000 ( 65 FR 80854); no comments were received.

3( c) Consultations No consultations were done..

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Less frequent information collection would decrease the margin of assurance 7 that facilities are continuing to meet the required standards. Requirements for information gathering and recordkeeping are useful techniques to ensure that good operation and maintenance practices are applied and emission limitations are met. If the information required by this standard was collected on a less frequent schedule, the likelihood of detecting poor operation and maintenance of control equipment and noncompliance would decrease.

3( e) General Guidelines None of these reporting or recordkeeping requirements violate any of the regulations established by OMB in 5 CFR § 1320.6.

3( f) Confidentiality The required information consists of emissions data and other information that have been determined not to be private. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674,

March 23, 1979).

3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements contain sensitive questions.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes 8 The respondents of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are:

Regulation SIC Codes NAICS Codes NSPS Subpart Ka  Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids 2911 2999 32411, 324121, 324122, 324191 and 324199 4( b) INFORMATION REQUESTED ( i) Data Items All data in this ICR that is recorded and/ or reported is required by 40 CFR Part 60 NSPS Subpart Ka Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids.

A source must make the following reports.

Reports for NSPS Subpart Ka Construction/ reconstruction. 60.7( a)( 1)

Anticipated startup. 60.7( a)( 2)

Actual startup. 60.7( a)( 3)

Physical or operational change. 60.7( a)( 4)

Initial performance test. 60.8( d)

Information prior to construction on vapor recovery and return or disposal system including emissions data, operations design specifications and maintenance plan. 60.113a ( a)( 2)( i iv)

Notification of 30 days prior to seal gap measurement. 60.113a ( a)( 1)( iv)

Report within 60 days when a seal gap measurement exceeds the limits of 60.112a. 60.113a ( a)( 1)( i)( E)

A source must keep the following records. 9 Recordkeeping for NSPS Subpart Ka Records are required to be retained for 2 Years. 60.2 Records startup, shutdowns, malfunctions. 60.7( b)

Records gap measurements: Secondary seals every year and Primary seals every five years. 60.113a ( a)( 1)( i)( D)

Whenever the liquid is changed or stored: period of storage, type of liquid and true vapor pressure. 60.115a ( a)

ii. Respondent Activities Respondent Activities Read instructions.

Measure floating roof seals ( gap measurement).

Review vapor recovery system.

Record change in liquid, date liquid was stored, maximum true vapor pressure.

Provide information on vapor recovery and return or disposal system, including emissions data, operations design specifications and maintenance plan.

Write the notifications and reports identified above.

Enter information required to be recorded above.

Submit the required reports developing, acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of processing and maintaining information.

Develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of disclosing and providing information.

Adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements.

Train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information.

Transmit, or otherwise disclose the information. 10 5. The Information Collected  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA conducts the following activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis,

storage, and distribution of the required information.

Agency Activities Observe initial performance tests ( no longer performed).

Review notifications and reports.

Audit facility records.

Input, analyze, and maintain data in the Aerometric Information Retrieval System ( AIRS) database.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Following notification of startup, the reviewing authority might inspect the source to determine whether the pollution control devices are properly installed and operated.

The Agency uses the performance test reports to discern a source's initial capability to comply with the emission standard, and note the operating conditions under which compliance was achieved. Data and records maintained by the respondents are tabulated and published for use in compliance and enforcement programs. The semiannual reports are used for problem identification, as a check on source operation and maintenance, and for compliance determinations.

Information contained in the reports is entered into AIRS which is operated and maintained by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. AIRS is EPA's 11 database for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of compliance and annual emission inventory data for more than 100,000 industrial and government owned facilities. The EPA uses AIRS for tracking air pollution compliance and enforcement by Local and State regulatory agencies, and EPA Regional Offices and Headquarters.

EPA and its delegated Authorities can edit, store, retrieve and analyze the data.

The records required by this regulation must be retained by the owner or operator for two years.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There are few small businesses affected by this standard. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements were selected within the context of this specific Subpart and the specific process equipment and pollutant( s). The impact on small businesses was accounted for in the regulation development. The requirements reflect the burden on small businesses. Even though, the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are the same for small and larger businesses. To the extent that larger businesses can use economies of scale to reduce their burden, the overall burden will be reduced. The Agency considers these requirements the minimum needed to ensure compliance and,

therefore, cannot reduce them further for small businesses.

5( d) Collection Schedule The specific frequency for each information collection activity within this request is shown in Section 6( d), Table 2: Industry Burden.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Section 6( d), Table 2 documents the computation of individual burdens for the 12 recordkeeping and reporting requirements applicable to the industry for this Subpart.

The individual burdens are expressed under standardized headings believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Where appropriate, specific tasks and major assumptions have been identified in this ICR.

Responses to this information collection are mandatory. ( See Section 4( b)( i). The Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

The burden to the Agency can be found at Section 6( c), Table 1.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The average annual burden to industry over the next three years from these recordkeeping and reporting requirements is estimated at 39,139 person hours. These hours are based on Agency studies and background documents from the development of the standards or test methods, Agency knowledge and experience with the NSPS program, the previously approved ICR, and any comments received.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs This ICR uses $ 49.62 per hour for Technical labor cost includes a 110%

overhead. This rate is from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 1 1. Summary, United States: Mean hourly earnings and weekly hours by selected characteristics, private industry and State and local government, National Compensation Survey, 1998, published September 2000. from the United States Department of Commerce Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 1999, Table 10: 13 Employment Costs for Private Industry by Occupational and Industry Group. The rates are from column 1: Total compensation. The wage rate includes a 110% overhead cost.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs The only type of industry cost associated with the information collection activity in the standards is labor cost. There are no capital or operations and maintenance costs. The capital startup costs are a one time cost when a facility becomes subject to the standard. The annual operations and maintenance costs are the ongoing costs to maintain the emission control equipment.

( iii) Capital/ Start up vs. Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs There is no continuous monitoring requirement( s) for NSPS Subpart Ka.

The total Capital/ Start up costs for this ICR are $ 0. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter a: Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total Operating and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs for this ICR is $ 0. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter b: Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs have been calculated on the addition of the capital start up costs and the annual operations and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital and operations and maintenance costs to industry over the next three years of the ICR are estimated to be $ 0. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 letter c: Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are truncated to show the cost in thousands of dollars. 14 The only Federal costs are user costs associated with analysis of the reported information. Publication and distribution of the information are part of the AIRS program. Periodic inspection of affected sources includes the examination of records maintained by the respondents, which is part of the EPA's overall compliance and enforcement program.

The average annual Federal Government cost during the three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 7,775. This cost is based on an average wage of a GS 10  step1 employee is $ 17.55 hr + 110% overhead = $ 36.85. This rate is from OPM's 2001 General Schedule, excluding locality pay. 15 6( c) Table 1  Estimating Agency Burden and Cost as a Result of NSPS Subpart Ka, Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids a EPA Occurrences/ EPA Plants/ EPA hr/ occurrence plant/ year hr/ plant/ year year hr/ yr ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( CxD)

Report Review: New Plant Vapor recovery information b Report Review: Existing Plant Notification of reconstruction 2.0 1.0 2.0 0 0 Notification of modification 2.0 1.0 2.0 0 0 Notification of seal gap 0.5 1.0 0.5 174 x 0.9c 78 measurement Report of gap excesses 1.0 1.0 1.0 174 x 0.9c, d 157 ANNUAL HOURS FOR Subpart Ka 235 10% Using the CAR Rule f 24 TOTAL ANNUAL HOURS 211 Travel Expenses ( Ten people [ 1 from each Region] x 0 plants/ yr x 3 days/ plant x $ 42 per diem x $ 90 lodging) + ($ 450 travel ticket/ plant x 0 plant day) = $ 0/ yr Salary ( Ten people [ 1 from each Region] x 24.8e hr/ year x $ 36.85/ hr) = $ 7,775/ yr TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 7,775/ yr a Assume no new sources subject to this regulation. All new sources will be subject to Subpart Kb.

b Required only at start of construction. This is a closed regulation. Any new storage vessels being constructed would be subject to the NSPS Subpart Kb.

c Assume that 90% of the storage vessels will use a floating roof. The remaining 10% will use a closed vent system.

d Each respondent is assumed to manage approximately 50 tanks subject to Subpart Ka. Assume that a number of the average 50 tanks per Respondent using a floating roof will have excessive seal gaps requiring that a single report be filed once per year.

e Assume the labor rate to be GS 10, Step 1 @ $ 17.55 x 110%=$ 36.85 per FY 2001 Pay Scale excluding locality pay.

f Percentage ( 10%) of Ka respondents utilizing the Consolidated Air Rule OMB Number 2060 0443. 16 6( d) Table 2  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs as a Result of NSPS Subpart Ka,

Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours/ respondent/ respondent/ Respondents/ Hours/ Cost/

Occurrence year year year year year ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F) b 1. Applications .................................... not applicable............................................

2. Surveys and Studies .................................... not applicable............................................

3. Reporting Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3B B. Required Activities Vapor recovery information 20 1 20 0 0 0 Measure seal gap Included in 4E.

C. Create Information Included in 3B.

D. Gather Existing Information 1 1 1 174 x 0.9 157 7,790 E. Write Report Notification of construction/ 2 1 2 0 0 0 reconstruction Notification of anticipated 2 1 2 0 0 0 startup Notification of actual startup 2 1 2 0 0 0 Notification of gap measurement 1.5 1 1.5 174 x 0.9c 235 11,661 Report of seal gap excess 2.5 1 2.5 174 x 0.9c 392 19,451 Information on vapor recovery Included in 3B.

4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions Included in 3B.

B. Plan Activities Included in 3B.

C. Implement Activities Included in 3B.

D. Develop Record System .................................... not applicable............................................

E. Time to Enter Information New tank seal gap measurements 5 x 50 1 250 0 0 0 Secondary seal gap measurements 5 x 50d, e 1 250 174 x 0.9c 39,250 1,947,585 17 6( d) Table 2  Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs as a Result of NSPS Subpart Ka,

Standards Of Performance For Storage Vessels For Petroleum Liquids, cont.

Occurrences/ Hours/

Hours/ respondent/ respondent/ Respondents/ Hours/ Cost/

Occurrence year year year year year ( A) ( B) ( C= AxB) ( D) ( E= CxD) ( F) b Primary seal gap measurements 2 x 50d, e 0.2 f 20 174 x 0.9c 3,140 155,807 Fill/ refill record .20 x 10g 1 2 174 x 0.9c 314 15,581 F. Train Personnel .................................... not applicable............................................

G. Audits .................................... not applicable............................................

ANNUAL BURDEN 43,488 $ 2,157,875 10% Using the CAR Rule h 4,349 215,787 TOTAL ANNUAL BURDEN 39,139 1,942,077 a Assume that there will be no new sources subject to the requirements of this regulation. New sources will be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb.

b Assume an hourly wage of $ 49.62 which includes the110% overhead cost. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,

Table 1 1. Summary, United States: Mean hourly earnings and weekly hours by selected characteristics, private industry and State and local government, National Compensation Survey, 1998, published September 2000.

c Estimate that 10% of respondents will use a vapor recovery control system and the balance ( 90%) will use a floating roof system. Respondents using vapor recovery control are not required to do seal gap measurements.

d There is an approximate average of 50 tanks subject to Subpart Ka per respondent. Assume that a number of tanks per every respondent using a floating roof, will have excessive seal gaps requiring that a single report be filed once a year.

e Estimate five hours to conduct secondary seal measurements annually for an average 50 tanks per respondent.

f Estimate two hours to conduct primary seal measurements every five years.

g Assume that any one tank would be emptied on average once every five years, and then required to report a liquid change. During any one year, a respondent would change liquid in approximately 10 tanks or 20% of the 50 tank average at each facility.

h Percentage ( 10%) of Ka respondents utilizing the Consolidated Air Rule OMB Number 2060 0443.

Notifications:

1. 90% of respondents will notify yearly on secondary seal gap measurements taking place 157 2. 3% of 157 notifications will need to report secondary seal gap exceedance 5 3. For primary gap measures, 20% of respondents will conduct 31 4. Of the 31 respondents, 1% will need to report exceeding any primary seal gap. 1 5. 20% of respondents will notify that they are fill/ refill storage vessels 31 18 Total number of annual responses 225 The total number of affected sources is 157. It is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13 a. This is the number of existing sources subject the NSPS Subpart Ka.

The total number of annual responses was 174. Ninety percent of the respondents ( 157)

will notify annually on the secondary gap measure, 5 notifications will be received due to exceeding the secondary gap and 31 notifications will be received for primary gap notifications,

1 notification for exceeding the primary seal gap and 31 notifications for fill/ refill. It is estimated that 10% of the total annual potential responses will comply with the Consolidated Air Rule for the SOCMI Industry ( 174 x 10% = 17 responses). This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13 b. The total annual labor costs are $ 2,181,783. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13 c.

The total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 0. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14 c.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours And Cost Tables See Section 6( c), Table 1, EPA's Burden for complete details. In summary, the burden to the Agency is 211 hours at a cost of $ 7,775 a year. Section 6( d), Table 2, Respondents'

Burden has the complete details for industry. In summary, the burden to industry is 39,139 hours at a cost of $ 2,181,783 per year.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden There is a change in the burden hours. The currently approved OMB Inventory for Burden Hours for Subpart Ka is 43,514. This ICR now includes a 10% decrease due to respondents opting out of NSPS Subpart Ka and taking advantage of the Consolidated Air 19 Rule. The respondents taking advantage of the Consolidated Air Rule reduces the total burden assigned to NSPS Ka by 4,341 hours for a total of 39,139 burden hours.

6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing a respondent's burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, Office of Environmental Information ( OEI), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Mail Code 2822, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D. C. 20460 0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number 1050.07 and OMB control number 2060 0121 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this 20 information.


                             Acetamiprid (099050)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                             Date: 23 August 2016

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
 Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
 Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
 Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
 Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
 Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
 Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
 Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
 Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
 Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
 Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
 USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2014.
 Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2005 to 2014.
 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2005 to 2013.
What are the limitations to the data?
 Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
 Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
 Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
 Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
 Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                                23 August 2016

                             Acetamiprid (099050)

                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

             Sorted Alphabetically  -  Reporting Time:  2005-2014

                                     Crop
                      Average Lbs. A.I. Applied Annually
                             Percent Crop Treated

                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                       1
Almonds
                                     1,000
          <1
        <2.5
                                       2
Apples
                                    20,000
          30
          45
                                       3
Apricots
                                    <500
          10
          20
                                       4
Asparagus
                                    <500
           5
          10
                                       5
Beans, Green
                                    <500
          <1
        <2.5
                                       6
Blueberries
                                     1,000
          10
          10
                                       7
Broccoli
                                     1,000
           5
          15
                                       8
Brussels Sprouts *
                                    <500
          10
          25
                                       9
Cabbage
                                     1,000
          10
          20
                                      10
Caneberries
                                    <500
           5
          15
                                      11
Cantaloupes
                                     1,000
          15
          45
                                      12
Cauliflower
                                    <500
          10
          20
                                      13
Celery
                                     1,000
          40
          65
                                      14
Cherries
                                     1,000
           5
          10
                                      15
Chicory *
                                    <500
          10
          25
                                      16
Cotton
                                    20,000
           5
          10
                                      17
Cucumbers
                                    <500
        <2.5
        <2.5
                                      18
Grapefruit
                                    <500
        <2.5
           5
                                      19
Grapes
                                     1,000
        <2.5
          10
                                      20
Kiwifruit *
                                    <500
        <2.5
        <2.5
                                      21
Lemons
                                    <500
        <2.5
           5
                                      22
Lettuce
                                     4,000
          15
          25
                                      23
Nectarines
                                    <500
          <1
        <2.5
                                      24
Onions
                                    <500
        <2.5
           5
                                      25
Oranges
                                     4,000
        <2.5
          10
                                      26
Peaches
                                     1,000
           5
          20
                                      27
Pears
                                     4,000
          35
          60
                                      28
Pecans
                                    <500
          <1
        <2.5
                                      29
Peppers
                                     1,000
           5
          15
                                      30
Pistachios
                                     1,000
           5
          10
                                      31
Plums/Prunes
                                    <500
        <2.5
          10
                                      32
Potatoes
                                     1,000
        <2.5
        <2.5
                                      33
Pumpkins
                                    <500
           5
          10
                                      34
Spinach
                                    <500
          10
          20
                                      35
Squash
                                     1,000
           5
          15
                                      36
Strawberries
                                     4,000
          30
          50
                                      37
Sweet Corn
                                     1,000
          <1
        <2.5
                                      38
Tobacco
                                    <500
        <2.5
        <2.5
                                      39
Tomatoes
                                     1,000
           5
          15
                                      40
Walnuts
                                     6,000
          15
          30
                                      41
Watermelons
                                    <500
           5
          10

All numbers rounded.
                                                                        <500
Less than 500 pounds of active ingredient
                                                                        <2.5
Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated
                                                                          <1
Less than 1 percent of crop treated
                                                                            N/C
Not calculated
                                                                              *
Based on CA DPR data only (valid because 80% or more of U.S. acres grown are in California)

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research
  California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.

                         Additional Registered Crops:
Alfalfa
No tolerance or PPIS.  Only use ever observed was 1 year by GfK.  GfK sample size is 1 so remove.
Bushberries
Not sure what would go here.
Canola\Rape
Last observed use was in 2006 by CalDPR.  Probably no current usage.
Clover
Usage information would be available for California only.  Unknown % of Clover in CA.
Crabapple
Tolerance exemption.  PPIS exists. No usage information available
Cranberry
Neither NASS nor GfK survey Cranberries
Leafy Vegetables
Neither NASS nor GfK survey Beets CalDPR does but did not observe usage.
Mustard
Neither NASS nor GfK survey Mustard greens.
Soybeans
Tolerance & PPIS. Surveyed by GfK & NASS.  No usage observed.


[Federal Register: September 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55711-55713]
[DOCID:fr14se10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 72, 78, and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9201-6]
RIN 2060-AP50

Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The preamble to the proposed Transport Rule contains minor,
technical errors that EPA is correcting in this action. In the portion
of the preamble discussing in detail the proposed trading programs, EPA
states clearly that it is proposing provisions that allow units to opt
into these trading programs. Moreover, the proposed rule text for the
Transport Rule includes detailed opt-in provisions for each proposed
trading program. However, two sentences in other portions of the
Transport Rule preamble erroneously state that the proposed trading
programs do not allow units to opt in. In this proposed rule, EPA is
correcting these technical errors.

DATES: Effective Date: These correcting amendments are effective on
September 14, 2010.
    Comments: The deadline for receipt of comments on the proposed
Transport Rule (including the corrections proposed by this action)
continues to be October 1, 2010, the same date set forth in the
proposed Transport Rule (75 FR 45210, August 2, 2010) as the deadline
for receipt of comments.
    Public Hearing: As explained in the proposed Transport Rule, three
public hearings were scheduled to be held before the end of the comment
period. The dates, times and locations were announced separately.
Please refer to the notice of public hearings (75 FR 45075, August 2,
2010) on the proposed Transport Rule for additional information on the
comment period and the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for the proposed Transport
Rule, including this action, under Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491. 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., confidential business information 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 are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. This action and other rulemaking
actions related to the proposed Transport Rule are also available at
EPA's Air Transport Web site at http://www.epa.gov/airtransport.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Tim Smith, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C539-04),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The proposed Transport Rule contains minor, technical errors in two
sentences in the preamble. In the portion of the preamble (i.e.,
section V.D.4.a (75 FR 45307-9)) that discusses in detail the proposed
Transport Rule trading programs, EPA states clearly that it is
proposing provisions that allow units to opt into the proposed trading
programs. Moreover, the proposed rule text in the proposed Transport
Rule (75 FR 45389-92, 45414-17, 45438-41, and 45462-65) includes
detailed opt-in provisions for each of these trading programs. However,
subsequent portions (i.e., sections V.F.3 (75 FR 45338) and V.G.1 (75
FR 45340)) of the preamble compare the proposed rule with the Clean Air
Interstate Rule and the Acid Rain Program and mention in a summary way
the treatment of opt-in units in the proposed rule. Two sentences in
those portions of the preamble erroneously state that the proposal does
not allow units to opt in.
    EPA believes that the proposed Transport Rule, as written, makes it
clear that the Agency is proposing to allow units to opt into the
Transport Rule trading programs. Furthermore, on July 15, 2010, EPA put
a statement on its Web site noting that the proposed trading programs
allow for opt-in units and explaining that the two sentences on 75 FR
45338 and 45340 are in error. On August 2, 2010, the docket for the
proposed Transport Rule, including a memorandum noting that this
statement had been put on EPA's Web site, became publicly available.
    While EPA maintains that its proposal is clear in proposing to
allow opt-in units, EPA is publishing this amendment to the proposed
Transport Rule to eliminate any possible claim of confusion.
Specifically, EPA is amending the two erroneous sentences in the
proposed Transport Rule preamble as follows. The second sentence in
section V.F.3 of the preamble (75 FR 45338 (col. 1)) is amended to
read: ``First, the proposed Transport Rule allows units to opt into the
trading programs.'' The seventh sentence of section V.G.1 of the
preamble (75 FR 45340 (col. 2)) is amended to read: ``The Transport
Rule programs as proposed have opt-in provisions, so sources, including
those that have opted into the Acid Rain Program, would be able to opt
into the Transport Rule programs.'' These amendments are technical
changes that do not alter the substance of the proposal. On the
contrary, the amendments simply make two sentences in the preamble that
summarily refer to the treatment of opt-in units in the proposal
consistent with the portions of the preamble and rule text that contain
not only a comprehensive, detailed discussion of EPA's proposed
inclusion of opt-in units in the proposed Transport Rule programs, but
also the proposed opt-in provisions themselves.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action only corrects minor, technical errors in the proposed
Transport Rule and, as discussed above, does not make any substantive
change

in the proposal. This action is therefore not an ``economically
significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Moreover, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously reviewed the proposed
Transport Rule under Executive Order 12866.
    In addition, EPA previously prepared the Regulatory Impacts
Analysis (RIA) for the proposed Transport Rule. This action correcting
minor, technical errors does not affect the RIA. The RIA and the
discussion of it in the proposed Transport Rule remain fully applicable
to the proposed Transport Rule with the corrections proposed by this
action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA previously submitted for approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) the information collection
requirements in the proposed Transport Rule. This action correcting
minor, technical errors does not change these requirements and their
estimated burden. The discussion of the requirements and their burden
in the proposed Transport Rule remain fully applicable to the proposed
Transport Rule with the corrections proposed by this action.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    EPA previously certified that the proposed Transport Rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This action correcting minor, technical errors does not
change the economic impact. The certification and the discussion of it
in the proposed Transport Rule remain fully applicable to the proposed
Transport Rule with the corrections proposed by this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    EPA previously prepared a written statement under section 202 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538),
and addressed the requirements of sections 203 through 205 of UMRA,
concerning the proposed Transport Rule. This action correcting minor,
technical errors does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
The written statement and the discussion of the requirements of
sections 203 through 205 of UMRA in the proposed Transport Rule remain
fully applicable to the proposed Transport Rule with the corrections
proposed by this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    EPA previously discussed the federalism implications of the
proposed Transport Rule. This action correcting minor, technical errors
does not have any federalism implications. The discussion of federalism
implications and of the applicability of Executive Order 13132,
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) in the proposed Transport
Rule remain fully applicable to the proposed Transport Rule with the
corrections proposed by this action.

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

    EPA previously discussed the tribal implications of the proposed
Transport Rule. This action correcting minor, technical errors does not
have any tribal implications. The discussion of tribal implications,
and of the applicability of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), in the proposed Transport Rule remain fully applicable to the
proposed Transport Rule with the corrections proposed by this action.

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

    EPA previously discussed the applicability of Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) to the proposed Transport Rule.
This action correcting minor, technical errors does not involve
decisions on environmental health and safety that may
disproportionately affect children. The discussion in the proposed
Transport Rule concerning Executive Order 13045 remains fully
applicable to the proposed Transport Rule with the corrections proposed
by this action.

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

    EPA previously prepared a Statement of Energy Effects under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This action correcting minor, technical errors not only
is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211, but also does not affect the Statement of Energy
Effects. The statement and the discussion of the statement in the
proposed Transport Rule remain fully applicable to the proposed
Transport Rule with the corrections proposed by this action.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    EPA previously discussed the consistency of the proposed Transport
Rule with the requirements of section 12(b) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, (NTAA) Public Law 104-113, 12(d)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note). This action correcting minor, technical errors
does not involve the use of technical standards. The discussion of the
application of NTAA requirements in the proposed Transport Rule remains
fully applicable to the proposed Transport Rule with the corrections
proposed by this action.

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

    EPA previously discussed the application of the requirements of
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) to the proposed Transport Rule. This action
correcting minor, technical errors does not change the human health or
environmental effects of the proposed Transport Rule on minority, low-
income, and Tribal populations in the United States. The discussion
applying the requirements of Executive Order 12898 in the proposed
Transport Rule remains fully applicable to the proposed Transport Rule
with the corrections proposed by this action.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide.

40 CFR Part 78

    Acid rain, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution
control, Electric utilities, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: September 8, 2010.
Lisa Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-22851 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 156)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 46429-46432]
[DOCID:fr14au06-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-8209-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances; Pollution Contingency
Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the Nineteenth (19th) Avenue
Landfill Superfund Site from the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
9 is issuing a notice of intent to delete the Nineteenth (19th) Avenue
Landfill Superfund Site (Site), located in Phoenix, AZ, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this
notice of intent. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part
300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Arizona, through the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), have determined
that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed.
Operation and maintenance and five-year reviews will continue at the
Site. This deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments concerning the deletion of this Site from the NPL must
be received by September 13, 2006.

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.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mail or Hand Delivery: Nadia Hollan,
EPA Region IX, Mail Code: SFD-8-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105,
     or
    Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket
ID No: EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, Mailcode: 5202T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    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 e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site

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

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

available electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or at the EPA's

information repositories at the following addresses: U.S. EPA Region IX
Superfund Records Center at 95 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA, (415)
536-2000, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., excluding holidays;
City of Phoenix Main Library, Government Documents Section, 1221 North
Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Hours: M-Th, 10
a.m. to 9 p.m., Fri. & Sat., 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Sun., 12 p.m. to 5
p.m.; and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Records Center,
1110 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85007, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1<PHONE_NUMBER>,

ext. 771-4380, Hours: M-F, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadia Hollan, EPA Remedial Project
Manager,<PHONE_NUMBER> OR 1<PHONE_NUMBER> (message line),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Or, you may contact

William DePaul, ADEQ Remedial Project Manager,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

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

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 announces
its intent to delete the 19th Avenue Landfill, located in Phoenix,
Arizona, from the National Priorities List (NPL), and requests comments
on this proposed deletion. The EPA identifies sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health or the environment and
maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL may be
the subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substances
Superfund Response Trust Fund (Fund). As described in 300.425(e)(3) of
the NCP, sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial
actions if conditions at a deleted site warrant such action.
    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 19th Avenue Landfill
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making a
determination to delete releases from the NPL, EPA shall 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; or
    (ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses 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.
    Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, as is the case with the
19th Avenue Landfill Site, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9621(c)
requires that a subsequent review of the site be conducted at least
every five years after the initiation of the remedial action at the
deleted site to ensure that the site remains protective of public
health and the environment. The Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ), with EPA oversight, will conduct each five-year review
of the Site. If new information becomes available which indicates a
need for further action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever
there is a significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the
deleted site may be restored to the NPL without the application of the
hazard ranking system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to the deletion of the Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State of Arizona on the deletion of
the Site from the NPL prior to developing this notice of intent to
delete.
    (2) The State of Arizona concurred with the deletion of the Site
from the NPL.
    (3) Concurrently with the publication of this notice of intent to
delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in the
Arizona Republic (local newspaper) and is being distributed to
appropriate federal, state, and local government officials and other
interested parties. The newspaper notice announces the 30-day public
comment period concerning the notice of intent to delete the Site from
the NPL.
    (4) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the deletion in
the Site information repositories identified above.
    If adverse comments are received within the 30-day public comment
period on this document, EPA will evaluate 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
place a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal Register. Generally,
the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the
Notice. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if
prepared, will be made available to interested parties and in the site
information repositories.
    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 of Intended Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for proposing to
delete the Site from the NPL.

Site Location and History

    The 19th Avenue Landfill is owned by the City of Phoenix and is
located southeast of the intersection of Lower Buckeye Road and 19th
Avenue, in a predominately industrial area of Phoenix, Maricopa County,
Arizona. The landfill is intersected by the Salt River Channel. The
larger part of the landfill, Cell A, covers approximately 200 acres
located on the north side of the Salt River channel. The remainder of
the landfill, Cell A-1, is located on the south side of the Salt River
channel.
    In 1955, the 19th Avenue Landfill Site was relatively undisturbed
except for a shallow 20-acre excavation. More pits were excavated as
deep as 50 feet below land surface to create the space needed for waste
disposal. The pits were then backfilled with municipal refuse, solid,
and liquid industrial wastes. Liquid wastes, including industrial
wastes, were poured into unlined pits dug into areas of Cell A
previously filled with refuse. In addition to the municipal and
industrial wastes, some medical wastes and materials containing low
levels of radioactivity were also deposited. It has been estimated that
the landfill contains approximately nine million cubic yards of refuse.
The refuse was generally covered on a daily basis. A final soil cap was
placed over an area once it was full of waste. Parts of the landfill
were covered with water by at least one flood during 1965 and
intermittently during the 1970s.
    The landfill was closed by a cease and desist order issued by the
Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS), predecessor to ADEQ, in
February 1979. The City of Phoenix (City), the landfill owner and
operator, and ADHS entered into a consent agreement in June 1979. The
City covered the Site with fill material, stockpiled soil for final

capping, installed 18 groundwater monitoring wells, built berms around
the boundary of the landfill, installed a methane gas collection
system, and provided a 24-hour security guard.
    The landfill was proposed for the EPA National Priorities List
(NPL) on December 30, 1982, and formally placed on the NPL on September
8, 1983. The City of Phoenix voluntarily began a remedial
investigation, and in 1988 the EPA assigned the lead oversight
responsibility for the Site to ADEQ.

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) conducted
was completed by the City in 1988. The RI/FS was prepared according to
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The major
findings of the RI/FS indicated that:
    1. The landfill contents are generally similar to those of other
municipal landfills of its era and include some hazardous materials,
pollutants, and contaminants at low levels.
    2. The majority of water quality results did not exceed Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCL). The following constituents exceeded the MCL
intermittently and in only a few wells during the RI: arsenic (maximum
level detected 170 ppb), barium (max. 2.58 ppm), carbon tetrachloride
(max. 35.1 ppb), gross alpha (max. 17.9 pCi/L), gross beta (max. 122
pCi/L), mercury (max. 11 ppb), and vinyl chloride (max. 2.6 ppb).
Generally, the total concentrations of VOCs in downgradient wells were
similar or less than in upgradient wells and impacts of inorganics at
the landfill were not discernible at downgradient wells. In addition,
the groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill was not being used as a
drinking water source. Because of the above factors, results of risk
assessment calculations, and that drinking water in the area is
supplied by the City of Phoenix, ADEQ and EPA determined that
groundwater quality did not pose a threat to public health or the
environment.
    3. The Salt River does not support permanent fish populations;
therefore, no bioaccumulation of compounds will occur. Small mammals
and birds observed at the landfill would not be expected to ingest any
contaminated soil or refuse due to the landfill(s protective cap.
    4. Additional flood protection was required. Approximately 30
percent of the surface area of Cell A and 50 percent of Cell A-1 would
be subject to inundation during a 100-year flow in the Salt River.
    5. The gas extraction system required renovation.

Record of Decision Findings

    The City completed a remedial action plan (RAP) according to the
State of Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Fund (WQARF or State
Superfund) in June 1989. The RAP selected the preferred remedy for the
Site. By Letter of Determination (LOD), dated September 21, 1989, ADEQ
approved the final draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) and the preferred
alternative for the Site. EPA signed a Record of Decision (ROD) in
September 29, 1989 concurring with the remedy.
    The major components of the selected remedy for the 19th Avenue
Landfill Site include:
    1. Levees along both the north and south banks of the Salt River at
the landfill Site to provide for flood protection;
    2. Channelization of the Salt River to widen the river bottom to
prevent flood water from impeding upon the landfill surface;
    3. A soil cap (minimum of 3 feet) with a permeability of less than
10-4 centimeters per second to be placed over the landfill so that rain
water does not seep into the landfill material;
    4. Methane gas collection and treatment in a manner that eliminates
the risk of explosion;
    5. Ambient air quality, methane gas, and groundwater monitoring;
and
    6. Implementation of a contingency plan to outline additional
monitoring and response evaluation procedures should groundwater
quality standards be exceeded at the landfill boundary in the future.
    Subsequent to the ROD, EPA and ADEQ signed three Explanations of
Significant Differences (ESDs) to the selected remedy. In December
1995, ESD 1 was signed to change the perimeter drainage
channel lining material from gunite to Armorflex. The Armorflex
material was better suited to handle potential landfill settlement and
for landfill maintenance activities. In October 2005, ESD 2
updated the applicable standards for groundwater and air quality. The
current and proposed EPA Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) and the Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guidelines for volatile
organic carbons were identified as standards to compare groundwater and
ambient air monitoring data with. In June 2006, ESD 3 was
completed to identify institutional controls (IC) that are necessary to
protect the integrity of the remedy in the long-term. The specific IC
mechanisms identified were the Declaration of Environmental Use
Restriction (DEUR) and the existing Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR) requirements. The DEUR controls the use and access to
the landfill property and ADWR restricts groundwater well site
location, construction, and use that could impact the remedy.

Response Actions

    ADEQ and the City entered into a Consent Decree in 1992 for the
implementation and long term operation and maintenance of the remedy.
Remedial design drawings and specifications were prepared by City
contractors for all components of the remedy and submitted for review
and approval by appropriate federal, state, county, and city agencies.
Between August 1995 and October 1996, the City's Remedial Action
contractor completed construction of the remedy components including
the levee system and other flood control improvements, site
landscaping, capping system, gas collection system, and the two flare
stations. The emissions testing for the flare stations at Cell A and
Cell A-1 were performed on October 16-18, 1996 and was satisfactory,
and an air permit was subsequently issued to the City. The landfill gas
collection system has been operational and functional since February
1997.
    The City of Phoenix submitted a construction completion report in
September, 1998 certifying completion of all remedial action and
documenting that the objectives of the remedial action have been met.
This report certifies that all major components of the remedy are
complete with the exception of environmental monitoring which is an
ongoing part of the remedy.
    A Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) documenting construction
completion was signed by ADEQ and EPA in February 1998. Remedial Action
Report was completed by the City of Phoenix in September 1998,
documenting that the remedy was operational and functional.
    During the first Five-Year Review in 2000, it was determined that
the methane gas collection system was not operating optimally and
methane had been migrating past the landfill boundary. In order to
enhance the operational up time of the system as well as to better
control methane along the southern and northeastern portions of the
landfill, where probes were out of compliance, an expansion to the
system was completed. The enhancements included installation of
additional

methane monitoring probes at the perimeter of the landfill, and methane
collection along the middle and southern portions of the landfill. A
final engineering design of a system to enhance gas collection was
approved by ADEQ in 2001, and construction was completed during May
2002. The system operates more effectively and the methane monitoring
probes have been in compliance since the system expansion was
completed.
    Finally, in order to implement institutional controls concerning
future land use, a Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (DEUR)
was recorded on the property title in July 2006. The DEUR restricts
uses of the property, and specifically prohibits residential use. A
Final Close Out report documenting completion of all necessary Site
remedial actions was also completed by ADEQ and EPA in July 2006.

Cleanup Standards and Operation and Maintenance

    The remedy selected for the Site eliminates or reduces the risks
posed by the Site through the use of engineering controls (cap, levee
system, methane collection and treatment system, etc.), and
institutional controls. The selected remedy provides for containment of
the large volume of low level organic and inorganic waste material
present in the landfill and reduces the potential for contaminant
migration into the groundwater. Groundwater, methane, and ambient air
monitoring are conducted to ensure the remedy is performing as
intended.
    Quarterly groundwater monitoring has been conducted at the Site
since 1992. It has been determined that the landfill has not impacted
groundwater off-site. Groundwater monitoring will continue according to
the Groundwater Contingency Plan requirements, however, it is extremely
unlikely that contamination from the landfill will ever trigger the
groundwater contingency or will pose a significant threat to human
health and the environment.
    Methane monitoring at the perimeter of the landfill is an on-going
process as part of the operation of the methane gas collection and
treatment system. Methane levels exceeding the explosive hazard (5% by
volume) are brought into compliance through operational adjustments of
the system in order to prevent migration of dangerous levels of methane
off-site. In addition, monitoring of stack emissions from the flare
stations is required on a periodic basis to conform with Maricopa
County regulations.
    Ambient air monitoring of VOCs above the landfill was performed in
December 1998 and July 1999. Results show that the landfill, with
current remedial measures in place, is not impacting ambient air
quality.
    Long-term protection of public health and the environment will be
ensured by regular operation and maintenance of the remedial measures
implemented and will be assessed by continued monitoring at the
landfill of groundwater, methane and if necessary, ambient air. The
City of Phoenix is required to implement these actions through the
Consent Decree as well as the Declaration of Environmental Use
Restriction (DEUR) with ADEQ.

Five-Year Review

    Two Five-Year reviews have been conducted at the Site in September
2000 and September 2005. All deficiencies identified in the reviews
have been corrected and the remedy is protective of human health and
the environment. As required by statute, ADEQ will continue conducting
statutory five-year reviews under EPA oversight. The next Five-Year
review is scheduled for September 2010.

Community Involvement

    Pubic participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. Community involvement activities for the 19th Avenue
Landfill began in 1986 and continued throughout the cleanup. A
Community Participation Group was established to review and provide
comments on available information about the project and serve as a
point of information exchange for the community. The RI/FS was released
to the public and was made available at the information repositories.
The RAP was submitted for public comment and a formal public meeting
was held on July 20, 1989. After completion of the ROD, periodic fact
sheets were issued to the Site mailing list to update the community on
Site cleanup progress, and notices were published in the newspaper
regarding five-year review activities. Documents in the deletion docket
which EPA relied on for recommendation of the deletion from the NPL are
available to the public in the information repositories.

Applicable Deletion Criteria

    One of the three criteria for site deletion in the NCP (40 CFR
300.425(e)(1)(i) specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if
``responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions
required.'' The EPA, with the concurrence of the State of Arizona
through the Department of Environmental Quality, has determined that
all appropriate responses under CERCLA have been completed by the
responsible party and that no further response actions under CERCLA are
necessary. Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities will continue to
be conducted by the responsible party, however O&M is not defined as a
response action by the NCP. Therefore, a site in O&M can be deleted.
EPA is proposing deletion of this site from the NPL based on this
criteria. Documents supporting this action area available in the
docket.

State Concurrence

    In a letter dated July 12, 2006, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality concurred with the proposed deletion of the 19th
Avenue Landfill Superfund Site from the NPL.

     Dated: August 3, 2006.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
 [FR Doc. E6-13298 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


J-22-00012-0013 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 J-22-0012-0013 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 J-22-0012-0013 Sanitized Risk Assessment Report (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55357-55360]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0271; Airspace Docket No. 13-AWP-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification and Establishment of Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes;
Western United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies three RNAV Q-routes and establishes five
Q-routes originating in Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center's
(ARTCC) airspace. The routes promote operational efficiencies for users
and provide connectivity to current and proposed RNAV en route and
terminal procedures. Also, two waypoints and a fix name is changed for
Q-120, and Q-128, as the proposed names already were in use.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 13, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://
www.faa.gov/airtraffic/publications/. The Order is also
available for inspection 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/
federalregister/codeoffederal-regulations/
ibrlocations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On June 9, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify three RNAV Q-routes and
establish 5 Q-routes originating in Oakland Air Route Traffic Control
Center's (ARTCC) airspace (79 FR 32883). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal. No comments were received.

Differences From the NPRM

    This rule changes the name of 3 waypoints. For Q-120, MENSE
waypoint is changed to BETBE and LIITL waypoint is changed to TRAKY.
For Q-128, NOBBY is changed to VLUST. The coordinates for these
waypoints remain the same. These waypoint name changes were necessary
as the proposed names already were in use or proposed in another
project.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifying 3 RNAV Q-routes and establishing 5 Q-routes
originating in

the Oakland ARTCC airspace. The routes run generally west-east,
connecting the San Francisco and Los Angeles terminal areas with
destinations to the east. The modified routes connect to new Standard
Instrument Departure (SID) and Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR)
procedures as designed in the Northern California (NorCal) Metroplex.
The routes provide options to traverse or circumnavigate the restricted
area R-2508 complex. The routes are described below.
    Q-120: Q-120 extends between the Sacramento, CA, VORTAC (SAC) and
the Redwood Falls, MN, VOR/DME (RWF). The modifications remove the SAC
VORTAC at the west end of the route and replace it with the new ORRCA
waypoint (WP). Additional WPs are added along the route. On the east
end, the RWF VOR/DME is removed from the route and a new endpoint is
established using the existing UFFDA WP, MN. The UFFDA WP is located
approximately 41 nautical miles (NM) west of the RWF VOR/DME, thereby
shortening the length of Q-120 by that distance. Two waypoints along
the route, MENSE and LIITL, are renamed BETBE and TRAKY, respectively.
    Q-128: Q-128 extends between the Linden, CA, VORTAC (LIN) and the
Memphis, TN, VORTAC (MEM). The modifications remove the LIN VORTAC from
the route and is replaced with the new SYRAH, CA, WP. The SYRAH WP is
located approximately 7 NM southwest of the LIN VORTAC. The
Bartlesville, OK, VOR/DME (BVO) is removed from the route and replaced
with the VEGUC, OK, WP (approximately 12 NM southeast of the BVO) VOR/
DME. The Razorback, AR, VORTAC (RZC) is also removed from the route and
replaced by the renamed VLUST, AR, WP. The VLUST WP is approximately 1
NM northeast of RZC VORTAC. The MEM VORTAC is removed from the route
and replaced by the MUDHO, MS, WP (approximately 7 NM southwest of the
MEM VORTAC). From the MUDHO WP, Q-128 is extended by approximately 160
NM to the southeast terminating at the new east end JILLS, AL, WP. The
JILLS WP is located approximately 11 NM northwest of the Crimson, AL,
VORTAC (LDK).
    Q130: Q130 extends between the LIN VORTAC and the Panhandle, TX,
VORTAC (PNH). The modifications remove the LIN VORTAC from route and
replace it with the new SYRAH, CA, WP. The Rattlesnake, NM, VORTAC
(RSK) is also replaced by the new HASSL, UT, WP; and the existing
TAHIB, UT, WP, is inserted between the ROCCY, UT, WP and the DIXAN, NM,
WP. The PNH VORTAC remains as the eastern endpoint of Q-130.
    The changes to Q-120, Q-128, and Q-130 support Performance Based
Navigation procedures into or out of terminal areas and reduce the
reliance on ground-based navigation aids by replacing some facilities
in the route descriptions with GPS waypoints.
    The following new routes are established:
    Q-158: Q-158 extends from a new NTELL, CA, WP (located west of
restricted area R-2508, near the Clovis, CA, VORTAC (CZQ), transiting
through the northern part of R-2508, and the new JEDNA, NV, WP
(northwest of Las Vegas, NV).
    Q-160: Q-160 begins at the new SHVVR, CA, WP, then transits through
the northern part of R-2508, and ends at the existing BIKKR, CA, WP,
where it links to Q-158.
    Q-162: Q-162 extends between the NTELL WP and the MYCAL, NV, WP.
From NTELL, Q-162 circumnavigates around the north end of R-2508
through the existing CABAB, CA, WP and the KENNO, NV, WP, then turns
southeastward through the gap between restricted areas R-2508 and R-
4807A/R-4808N, to the MYCAL WP, where it links to Q-158.
    Q-164: Q-164 extends between the NTELL, CA, WP and the existing
ROCCY, UT, WP. Q-164 provides east- and west-bound routing north of the
R-2508 and R-4807/R-4808 complexes.
    Q-166: Q-166 begins at the VIKSN, CA, WP, then transits through the
northeast corner of R-2508, and ends at the BIKKR, CA, WP. Q-166
connects with Q-162 at the VIKSN WP and with Q-158 and Q-160 at the
BIKKR WP.
    It should be noted that the routes that transit through R-2508
(i.e., Q-158, Q-160 and Q-166) are only available during times when the
restricted airspace has been released to the FAA for joint use in
accordance with a joint use agreement.
    This action promotes user operational efficiencies and provides
connectivity to current and proposed RNAV en route and terminal
procedures.
    High altitude RNAV routes are published in paragraph 2006 of FAA
Order 7400.9Y dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15, 2014,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes
listed in this document are subsequently published in the Order.
    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 Department of Transportation (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.
    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 the
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 modifies the route structure as required to enhance the safe and
efficient flow of air traffic in the western United States.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policy and
Procedures'' paragraph 311a. 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.

List 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(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 FAA Order 7400.9Y,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and
effective September 15, 2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 2006 United States area navigation routes.

* * * * *

Q120 ORRCA, CA to UFFDA, MN [Amended]

ORRCA, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]26'37'' N., long. 121[deg]33'06'' W.)
BETBE, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 39[deg]53'32'' N., long. 119[deg]05'50'' W.)
ZORUN, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 39[deg]59'00'' N., long. 118[deg]55'00'' W.)
GALLI, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 40[deg]19'10'' N., long. 118[deg]07'18'' W.)
JAJAY, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 40[deg]44'03'' N., long. 116[deg]49'33'' W.)
TRAKY, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 41[deg]21'36'' N., long. 114[deg]44'31'' W.)
PROXI, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 41[deg]58'21'' N., long. 112[deg]31'34'' W.)
Big Piney, WY (BPI).........  VOR/DME             (Lat. 42[deg]34'46'' N., long. 110[deg]06'33'' W.)
JUGIV, WY...................  WP                  (Lat. 42[deg]57'44'' N., long. 108[deg]08'43'' W.)
HIKOX, WY...................  WP                  (Lat. 43[deg]12'16'' N., long. 106[deg]52'19'' W.)
JASTI, SD...................  WP                  (Lat. 44[deg]01'24'' N., long. 101[deg]26'26'' W.)
UFFDA, MN...................  WP                  (Lat. 44[deg]29'46'' N., long. 96[deg]05'25'' W.)

Q128 SYRAH, CA to JILLS, AL [Amended]

SYRAH, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]59'28'' N., long. 121[deg]06'11'' W.)
JSICA, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]31'14'' N., long. 117[deg]17'13'' W.)
TABLL, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]39'56'' N., long. 113[deg]10'35'' W.)
EDLES, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]40'40'' N., long. 109[deg]56'27'' W.)
FLOOD, CO...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]20'24'' N., long. 105[deg]05'38'' W.)
ZAROS, CO...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]59'22'' N., long. 102[deg]20'22'' W.)
VEGUC, OK...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]48'52'' N., long. 96[deg]00'45'' W.)
VLUST, AR...................  FIX                 (Lat. 36[deg]15'13'' N., long. 94[deg]06'27'' W.)
ECIGE, AR...................  WP                  (Lat. 35[deg]33'53'' N., long. 91[deg]54'08'' W.)
MUDHO, MS...................  WP                  (Lat. 34[deg]56'30'' N., long. 90[deg]06'26'' W.)
JILLS, AL...................  WP                  (Lat. 33[deg]19'27'' N., long. 87[deg]44'47'' W.)

Q130 SYRAH, CA to Panhandle, TX (PNH) [Amended]

SYRAH, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]59'28'' N., long. 121[deg]06'11'' W.)
JSICA, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]31'14'' N., long. 117[deg]17'13'' W.)
REANA, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]24'00'' N., long. 114[deg]20'00'' W.)
ROCCY, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]49'42'' N., long. 112[deg]00'00'' W.)
HASSL, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]34'12'' N., long. 110[deg]53'01'' W.)
TAHIB, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]03'15'' N., long. 108[deg]47'44'' W.)
DIXAN, NM...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]16'51'' N., long. 105[deg]57'20'' W.)
MIRME, NM...................  WP                  (Lat. 35[deg]47'01'' N., long. 103[deg]50'32'' W.)
Panhandle, TX (PNH).........  VORTAC              (Lat. 35[deg]14'06''N., long. 101[deg]41'57'' W.)

Q158 NTELL, CA TO JEDNA, NV [New]

NTELL, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]53'59'' N., long. 119[deg]53'22'' W.)
PPARK, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]46'49'' N., long. 118[deg]38'49'' W.)
TRTIS, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]36'37'' N., long. 117[deg]06'57'' W.)
BIKKR, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]34'00'' N., long. 116[deg]45'00'' W.)
MYCAL, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]27'37'' N., long. 116[deg]15'51'' W.)
JEDNA, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]19'24'' N., long. 115[deg]39'22'' W.)

Q160 SHVVR, CA TO BIKKR, CA [New]

SHVVR, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]14'24'' N., long. 119[deg]48'49'' W.)
FAANG, CA...................  INT                 (Lat. 37[deg]00'00'' N., long. 118[deg]35'03'' W.)
RIVVO, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]39'10'' N., long. 117[deg]06'15'' W.)
BIKKR, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]34'00'' N., long. 116[deg]45'00'' W.)

Q162 NTELL, CA TO MYCAL, NV [New]

NTELL, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]53'59'' N., long. 119[deg]53'22'' W.)
CABAB, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]16'36'' N., long. 118[deg]43'12'' W.)
VIKSN, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]21'03'' N., long. 117[deg]53'36'' W.)
KENNO, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]17'53'' N., long. 117[deg]18'37'' W.)
ESSAA, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]04'05'' N., long. 116[deg]55'59'' W.)
TUMBE, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]48'20'' N., long. 116[deg]40'03'' W.)
MYCAL, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]27'37'' N., long. 116[deg]15'51'' W.)

Q164 NTELL, CA TO ROCCY, UT [New]

NTELL, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]53'59'' N., long. 119[deg]53'22.21'' W.)
CABAB, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]16'36'' N., long. 118[deg]43'12'' W.)
KICHI, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]58'00'' N., long. 117[deg]11'00'' W.)
KATTS, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]20'00'' N., long. 116[deg]20'00'' W.)
KITTN, NV...................  WP                  (Lat. 38[deg]19'44'' N., long. 114[deg]57'41'' W.)
ROCCY, UT...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]49'42'' N., long. 112[deg]00'00'' W.)

Q166 VIKSN, CA TO BIKKR, CA [New]

VIKSN, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 37[deg]21'03'' N., long. 117[deg]53'36'' W.)
UHILL, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]53'48'' N., long. 117[deg]13'36'' W.)
BIKKR, CA...................  WP                  (Lat. 36[deg]34'00'' N., long. 116[deg]45'00'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2014.
Ellen Crum,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-21914 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


DRAFT AGENDA ( as of 9/ 27/ 05) PESTICIDE PROGRAM DIALOGUE COMMITTEE MEETING Georgetown University Conference Center 3800 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, DC The Leavey Center, Main Floor   Salon " H" October 20 21, 2005 Thursday, October 20 9: 00 9: 30 Opening Remarks and Introduction of Members Susan Hazen, Acting Assistant Administrator, OPPTS Jim Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs 9: 30 10: 00 SESSION I   PROGRAM UPDATES * Registration Review * Reregistration/ Tolerance Reassessment 10: 00 11: 00 SESSION II   HUMAN STUDIES RULE Presentation followed by Group Discussion 11: 00 11: 15 Break 11: 15  11: 45 SESSION III   PREVIEW EPA STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE 11: 45 12: 15 SESSION IV   PESTICIDE PERFORMANCE MEASURES Presentations by Work Group Members followed by Group Discussion 12: 15  1: 30 LUNCH 1: 30  2: 30 SESSION IV continued   PESTICIDE PERFORMANCE MEASURES 2: 30  3: 00 SESSION V   RULEMAKING STATUS   Registration Review   Section 18   Container Rule   Part 158 3: 00  3: 15 Break 3: 15  3: 45 SESSION VI   INTEGRATED TESTING   STRATEGY & VISION Session Chairs: Steven Bradbury and Tina Levine 3: 45 4: 30 SESSION VII   WORKER SAFETY   PRIA Worker Protection Resources   Pesticide Safety Education Program   National Assessment of the Pesticide Worker Safety Program 4: 30 5: 00 Public Comment 5: 00 Meeting Adjourns for Day 1 Friday, October 21 9: 00  9: 30 SESSION VIII   PRIA PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKGROUP UPDATE Presentation by Greg Watson followed by Group Discussion 9: 30 10: 30 SESSION IX   SPRAY DRIFT   NPDES   Broader Issues Group Discussion 10: 30  10: 45 Break 10: 45  11: 15 SESSION X   PPDC COMMITTEE STATUS * Charter Renewal * Membership * Planning for Next Meeting 11: 15 11: 45 Public Comment 11: 45 12: 00 Meeting Wrap Up and Adjournment