Federal Register Proposed Rules, Rules and Notices for August 26,2013

August 26,2013

NOTICES

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended [FR DOC# 2013-20666] SUMMARY: In accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a
proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with the
Central Chemical Superfund Site, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland was executed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper,
or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against
Milton N. Stamper, (“Settling Party”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $15,000.00
for response costs incurred by EPA for the Site. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will
receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA’s response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Notice of Administrative Settlement Agreement Pursuant to Section 122(H) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as Amended [FR DOC# 2013-20646] SUMMARY: In accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given that a
proposed administrative settlement agreement for recovery of response costs (“Proposed Agreement”) associated with the
Central Chemical Superfund Site, Hagerstown, Washington County, Maryland was executed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”) and is now subject to public comment, after which EPA may modify or withdraw its consent if
comments received disclose facts or considerations that indicate that the Proposed Agreement is inappropriate, improper,
or inadequate. The Proposed Agreement would resolve potential EPA claims under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, against
Herman F. Stamper, (“Settling Party”). The Proposed Agreement would require Settling Party to reimburse EPA $2,500.00
for response costs incurred by EPA for the Site. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will
receive written comments relating to the Proposed Agreement. EPA’s response to any comments received will be available
for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

 

PROPOSED RULES

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Redesignation of the Columbus Area to Attainment
of the 1997 Annual Standard for Fine Particulate Matter [FR DOC# 2013-20651] SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to grant,
under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a redesignation request and approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request
submitted by the state of Ohio on June 3, 2011, and supplemented on April 30, 2013. The Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA) has requested the redesignation of the Columbus, Ohio (OH) area to attainment of the 1997 annual fine
particulate (PM<INF>2.5</INF>) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard). The Columbus, Ohio area
(Columbus area) includes Coshocton, Delaware, Licking, Fairfield, and Franklin Counties. EPA is proposing to determine
that the Columbus area has attained the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS and to approve the state’s
redesignation request. EPA is proposing to approve related Ohio SIP revisions, including the state’s plan for maintaining
attainment of the 1997 annual PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in the Columbus area through 2023, the state’s 2022 Nitrogen
Oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and PM<INF>2.5</INF> Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Columbus area
(which EPA is also proposing to find adequate), and 2005 NO<INF>X</INF>, Sulfur Dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>), and
primary PM<INF>2.5</INF> and 2007 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and ammonia emission inventories for the
Columbus area. In the context of this proposal to redesignate the Columbus area, EPA addresses a number of additional
issues, including the effects of two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C.
Circuit or Court): The Court’s August 21, 2012, decision to vacate and remand to EPA the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR); and the Court’s January 4, 2013, decision to remand to EPA two final rules implementing the 1997 annual
PM<INF>2.5</INF> standard.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: