Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site, 77528-77529 [2011-31911]

Download as PDF 77528 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices according to the date that EPA approves California’s authorization request to facilitate compliance. AWO also expressed concerns about inconsistent regulation for vessels engaged in interstate commerce. K-Sea echoed a similar concern, stating that the regulations will shift the burden of dealing with emissions to other states because companies may choose to relocate a non-CARB compliant engine to operations elsewhere. With respect to AWO’s request for a delayed compliance schedule, EPA cannot change an aspect of California’s regulation. EPA is only authorized to review California’s standards to determine compliance with section 209. It is not authorized to change California’s regulations. With respect to the AWO and K-Sea comments regarding the interstate implications of California’s commercial harbor craft regulations, that issue is also beyond the scope of EPA’s review under the three section 209(e)(2) criteria. As EPA has stated on numerous occasions, sections 209(b) and 209(e) of the Clean Air Act limit our authority to deny California requests for waivers and authorizations to the three criteria listed therein. As a result, EPA has consistently refrained from denying California’s requests for waivers and authorizations based on any other criteria.43 In instances where the U.S. Court of Appeals has reviewed EPA decisions declining to deny waiver requests based on criteria not found in section 209(b), the Court has upheld and agreed with EPA’s determination.44 Neither of these other issues AWO and K-Sea raises is among—or fits within the confines of—the criteria listed under section 209(e).45 It is clear that Congress intended that California have the ability to promulgate standards that are more stringent than those that would otherwise apply to mobile sources under federal regulations. Indeed, other states could also promulgate such standards if they are identical to California’s. Therefore, in considering California’s commercial harbor craft regulations, EPA may not deny authorization based on these issues. srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 43 See, e.g., 74 FR 32744, 32783 (July 8, 2009). Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462–63, 466–67 (DC Cir. 1998), Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Ass’n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 1095, 1111, 1114–20 (DC Cir. 1979). 45 AWO and K-Sea may raise these issues in a direct challenge to California’s regulations in other forums, but these issues are not relevant to EPA’s limited review under section 209. 44 See VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:25 Dec 12, 2011 Jkt 226001 E. Authorization Determination for California’s Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations After a review of the information submitted by CARB and other parties to this proceeding, EPA finds that those opposing California’s request have not met the burden of demonstrating that an authorization for California’s commercial harbor craft regulations should be denied based on any of the three statutory criteria of section 209(e)(2). For this reason, EPA finds that an authorization for California’s commercial harbor craft regulations should be granted. III. Decision The Administrator has delegated the authority to grant California section 209(b) waivers of preemption and section 209(e) authorizations to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. After evaluating California’s commercial harbor craft regulations, CARB’s submissions, and the public comments from AWO and K-Sea, EPA is granting an authorization to California for its commercial harbor craft regulations. My decision will affect not only persons in California, but also entities outside the State who must comply with California’s requirements. For this reason, I determine and find that this is a final action of national applicability for purposes of section 307(b)(1) of the Act. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final action may be sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review must be filed by February 13, 2012. Judicial review of this final action may not be obtained in subsequent enforcement proceedings, pursuant to section 307(b)(2) of the Act. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews As with past authorization and waiver decisions, this action is not a rule as defined by Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget as required for rules and regulations by Executive Order 12866. In addition, this action is not a rule as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has not prepared a supporting regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact of this action on small business entities. Further, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Dated: December 5, 2011. Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 2011–31916 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–9505–6] Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. AGENCY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of response costs concerning the North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site, located in the vicinity of Los Angeles, California, with the following settling parties: Pick-YourPart Auto Wrecking; Hayward Associates, LLC; and PNM Properties, LLC. The settlement requires the settling parties to pay a total of $102,161 to the North Hollywood Operable Unit Special Account within the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement also includes a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency’s response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the City of Los Angeles Central Library, Science and Technology Department, 630 West 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 and at the EPA Region 9 Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD–7C, 95 Hawthorne Street, Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105. SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM 13DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 239 / Tuesday, December 13, 2011 / Notices Comments must be submitted on or before January 12, 2012. ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at the EPA Region 9 Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD–7C, 95 Hawthorne Street, Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105. A copy of the proposed settlement may also be obtained from the EPA Region 9 Superfund Record Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop SFD–7C, Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 820–4700. Comments should reference the North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund Site, and EPA Docket No. 9–2011–0019 and should be addressed to Michael Massey, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop ORC–3, San Francisco, CA 94105. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Manheimer, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop SFD–7–1, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972– 3290. DATES: Dated: November 17, 2011. Jane Diamond, Director, Superfund Division. [FR Doc. 2011–31911 Filed 12–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Information Collection Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. AGENCY: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission’s srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:25 Dec 12, 2011 Jkt 226001 burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. DATES: Written comments should be submitted on or before January 12, 2012. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via fax (202) 395–5167, or via email Nicholas_A._ Fraser@omb.eop.gov; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418–2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page https://www.reginfo.gov/ public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box below the ‘‘Currently Under Review’’ heading, (4) select ‘‘Federal Communications Commission’’ from the list of agencies presented in the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (5) click the ‘‘Submit’’ button to the right of the ‘‘Select Agency’’ box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 3060–0888. Title: Section 1.221, Notice of hearing; appearances; Section 1.229 Motions to enlarge, change, or delete issues; Section 1.248 Prehearing conferences; hearing conferences; Section 76.7, PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 77529 Petition Procedures; Section 76.9, Confidentiality of Proprietary Information; Section 76.61, Dispute Concerning Carriage; Section 76.914, Revocation of Certification; Section 76.1001, Unfair Practices; Section 76.1003, Program Access Proceedings; Section 76.1302, Carriage Agreement Proceedings; Section 76.1513, Open Video Dispute Resolution. Form Number: Not applicable. Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection. Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit. Number of Respondents and Responses: 668 respondents; 668 responses. Estimated Time per Response: 6.1 to 90.5 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r), and 616 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Total Annual Burden: 32,264 hours. Total Annual Cost: $2,705,400. Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s). Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: A party that wishes to have confidentiality for proprietary information with respect to a submission it is making to the Commission must file a petition pursuant to the pleading requirements in Section 76.7 and use the method described in Sections 0.459 and 76.9 to demonstrate that confidentiality is warranted. Needs and Uses: On August 1, 2011, the Commission adopted a Second Report and Order, Leased Commercial Access; Development of Competition and Diversity in Video Programming Distribution and Carriage, MB Docket No. 07–42, FCC 11–119. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission took initial steps to improve the procedures for addressing program carriage complaints by: (i) Codifying in the Commission’s rules what a program carriage complainant must demonstrate in its complaint to establish a prima facie case of a program carriage violation; (ii) providing the defendant with 60 days (rather than the current 30 days) to file an answer to a program carriage complaint; (iii) establishing deadlines for action by the Media Bureau and Administrative Law Judges (‘‘ALJ’’) when acting on program carriage complaints; and (iv) establishing procedures for the Media E:\FR\FM\13DEN1.SGM 13DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77528-77529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31911]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9505-6]


Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement; North 
Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 Superfund 
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement for recovery of response costs concerning the 
North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 
Superfund Site, located in the vicinity of Los Angeles, California, 
with the following settling parties: Pick-Your-Part Auto Wrecking; 
Hayward Associates, LLC; and PNM Properties, LLC. The settlement 
requires the settling parties to pay a total of $102,161 to the North 
Hollywood Operable Unit Special Account within the Hazardous Substance 
Superfund. The settlement also includes a covenant not to sue the 
settling parties pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 
9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the 
settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may 
modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received 
disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at the City 
of Los Angeles Central Library, Science and Technology Department, 630 
West 5th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071 and at the EPA Region 9 
Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD-7C, 95 Hawthorne Street, Room 
403, San Francisco, CA 94105.

[[Page 77529]]


DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before January 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection 
at the EPA Region 9 Superfund Records Center, Mail Stop SFD-7C, 95 
Hawthorne Street, Room 403, San Francisco, CA 94105. A copy of the 
proposed settlement may also be obtained from the EPA Region 9 
Superfund Record Center, 95 Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop SFD-7C, Room 
403, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 820-4700. Comments should reference 
the North Hollywood Operable Unit of the San Fernando Valley Area 1 
Superfund Site, and EPA Docket No. 9-2011-0019 and should be addressed 
to Michael Massey, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop ORC-3, 
San Francisco, CA 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Manheimer, EPA Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, Mail Stop SFD-7-1, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 
972-3290.

    Dated: November 17, 2011.
Jane Diamond,
Director, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-31911 Filed 12-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.