Environmental Protection Agency May 18, 2006 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Proposed CERCLA Administrative Cost Recovery Settlement: Dayton X-Ray Company Superfund Site
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 Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs (``Agreement''), issued pursuant to section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA, concerning the Dayton X-Ray Site in Dayton, Ohio, between the United States Environmental Protection Agency (``U.S. EPA'' or ``the Agency'') and the following Settling Party: Joan Ruth Sammons. The proposed Agreement contains a settlement between U.S. EPA and Joan Ruth Sammons for the payment of a portion of U.S. EPA's costs incurred in connection with the Dayton X-Ray Superfund Site. The Agreement requires the Settling Party to pay a total of $20,955.62 plus interest in the amount of $178.90 into the U.S. EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund. The Agreement also includes U.S. EPA's covenant not to sue the Settling Party pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), if Settling Party fulfills her obligations under the proposed Agreement. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the Agreement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the Agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the following location: Records Center, U.S. EPA, Region 5, 7th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
Availability of FY 05 Grantee Performance Evaluation Reports for the Eight States of EPA Region 4 and Selected Local Agencies
EPA's grant regulations (40 CFR 35.115) require the Agency to evaluate the performance of agencies which receive grants. EPA's regulations for regional consistency (40 CFR 56.7) require that the Agency notify the public of the availability of the reports of such evaluations. EPA performed end-of-year evaluations of eight state air pollution control programs (Alabama Department of Environmental Management; Florida Department of Environmental Protection; Georgia Department of Natural Resources; Kentucky Environmental & Public Protection Cabinet; Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality; North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources; South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and 12 local programs (City of Huntsville Division of Natural Resources, AL; Jefferson County Department of Health, AL; City of Jacksonville Environmental Quality Division, FL; Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission, FL; Miami-Dade County Air Quality Management Division, FL; Palm Beach County Health Department Division of Environmental Health, FL; Forsyth County Environmental Affairs Department, NC; Mecklenburg County Land Use and Environmental Services Agency, NC; Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, NC; Memphis-Shelby County Health Department, TN; Knox County Department of Air Quality Management, TN; and Nashville-Davidson County Metropolitan Public Health Department, TN). The 20 evaluations were conducted to assess the agencies' performance under the grants awarded by EPA under authority of section 105 of the Clean Air Act. EPA Region 4 has prepared reports for each agency identified above and these reports are now available for public inspection. The evaluations for the remainder of the local governments will be published at a later date.
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; La Grande, OR; PM10
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the March 22, 2006 direct final rule (see 71 FR 14393) to approve a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance plan revision for the La Grande, Oregon nonattainment area and to redesignate the area from nonattattainment to attainment for PM10. In the March 22, 2006 direct final rule, we stated that if we received adverse comments by April 21, 2006, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and would not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. EPA will address all comments received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on March 22, 2006 (see 71 FR 14438). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Lakeview, OR; PM10
Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the March 22, 2006 direct final rule (see 71 FR 14399) to approve a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance plan revision for the Lakeview, Oregon nonattainment area and to redesignate the area from nonattattainment to attainment for PM10. In the March 22, 2006 direct final rule, we stated that if we received adverse comments by April 21, 2006, the direct final rule would be withdrawn and would not take effect. EPA subsequently received adverse comment on that direct final rule. EPA will address all comments received in a subsequent final action based upon the proposed action also published on March 22, 2006 (see 71 FR 14438). EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
