36696 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

B. Has Indiana submitted an approvable 

ozone maintenance plan and 

approvable motor vehicle emission 

budget? 

To be approvable, an ozone 

maintenance plan, in part, must 

demonstrate that the ozone standard 

will be maintained in the ozone 

nonattainment area for at least 10 years 

after EPA approves the state’s ozone 

redesignation request. A critical 

component of ozone maintenance plans 

is an ozone attainment emissions 

inventory documenting the VOC and 

NOX emissions inventory for the period 

in which the area has attained the ozone 

standard. The ozone maintenance 

demonstration usually involves the 

demonstration that future (during the 10 

years after redesignation) VOC and NOX

emissions will be at or below the 

attainment emissions. Indiana’s ozone 

redesignation request contains such an 

ozone maintenance demonstration. 

Since the Chicago ozone 

nonattainment area continues to violate 

the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we 

cannot conclude that Indiana has 

developed an acceptable attainment 

year emissions inventory. This means 

that the ozone maintenance 

demonstration portion of the ozone 

maintenance plan is unacceptable. 

Since the estimation of the VOC and 

NOX MVEBs depends on the 

determination of mobile source 

emissions that, along with other 

emissions in the nonattainment area, 

provide for attainment of the ozone 

standard, and since the Chicago 

nonattainment area continues to violate 

the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we 

conclude that Indiana’s estimates of the 

VOC and NOX MVEBs are also not 

acceptable. 

We are not proposing action on 

Indiana’s ozone maintenance 

demonstration and plan and MVEBs at 

this time. However, we note that, if we 

were to propose actions on these ozone 

redesignation request elements, we 

would find it necessary to propose 

disapproval. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and, therefore, is not subject to review 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This action merely disapproves state 

law as not meeting Federal requirements 

and imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Because this rule disapproves preexisting requirements under state law 

and does not impose any additional 

enforceable duty beyond that required 

by state law, it does not contain any 

unfunded mandate or significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments, as 

described in the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4). 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

states, on the relationship between the 

national government and the states, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

disapproves a state rule, and does not 

alter the relationship or the distribution 

of power and responsibilities 

established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), because it disapproves 

a state rule. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, Or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or a ‘‘significant energy action,’’ 

this action is also not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. In this context, in the absence 

of a prior existing requirement for the 

state to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a state submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a state 

submission, to use VCS in place of a 

state submission that otherwise satisfies 

the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, 

Wilderness areas. 

Dated: June 18, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15287 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989–0007; FRL–9912– 

80–Region 5] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List: Partial 

Deletion of the Naval Industrial 

Reserve Ordnance Plant (NIROP) 

Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 36697 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: EPA Region 5 is issuing a 

Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 

2 (OU2) of the Naval Industrial Reserve 

Ordnance Plant (NIROP) Superfund Site 

(Site), located in Fridley, Minnesota, 

from the National Priorities List (NPL) 

and requests public comments on this 

proposed action. The NPL, promulgated 

pursuant to section 105 of the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA with the 

concurrence of the State of Minnesota, 

through the Minnesota Pollution 

Control Agency (MPCA), has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA at the 

OU, identified herein, other than 

operation, maintenance, and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this partial deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

EPA divided the NIROP Site into 

three portions, known as OUs, for ease 

of addressing its contaminant issues. 

This partial deletion pertains to the OU2 

portion of NIROP, which includes all 

the unsaturated soils within the legal 

boundaries of the NIROP Superfund Site 

exclusive of unsaturated soils 

underlying the former Plating Shop 

Area (see Site Map in the SEMS ID 

446572 document listed in the Deletion 

Docket for OU2). The following areas 

will remain on the NPL and are not 

being considered for deletion as part of 

this action: OU1 and OU3. OU1 

includes the contaminated groundwater 

within and originating from the NIROP 

Superfund Site. OU3 includes all the 

unsaturated soils underlying the former 

Plating Shop Area. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

July 30, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID no. EPA–HQ– 

SFUND–1989–0007, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: Sheila Desai, Remedial 

Project Manager, at desai.sheila@

epa.gov or Theresa Jones, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, at 

jones.theresa@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Gladys Beard at (312) 697– 

2077. 

• Mail: Sheila Desai, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (SR–6J), 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 

353–4150 or Teresa Jones, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (SI– 

7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886–0725 or 

toll free at 1–(800) 621–8431. 

• Hand delivery: Teresa Jones, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(SI–7J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

normal business hours are Monday 

through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

CST, excluding federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1989– 

0007. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov 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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through http://

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http://

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

• U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, Phone: 

(312) 353–1063, Hours: Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CST, 

excluding federal holidays. 

• The Navy has set up an online 

repository for the NIROP Superfund Site 

at the link below. Please click on the 

Administrative Record File link to see 

all the documents. http://go.usa.gov/

DyNY 

• The Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency also has an information 

repository for the NIROP Superfund Site 

at their offices: 520 Lafayette Road, St. 

Paul, MN 55155. Call 651–296–6300 or 

toll-free at 800–657–3864 to schedule an 

appointment. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila Desai, Remedial Project Manager, 

Environmental Protection Agency (SR– 

6J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–4150, 

desai.sheila@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion for OU2 of the NIROP 

Superfund Site without prior Notice of 

Intent for Partial Deletion because EPA 

views this as a noncontroversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comment. We have explained our 

reasons for this deletion in the preamble 

to the direct final Notice of Partial 

Deletion, and those reasons are 

incorporated herein. If we receive no 

adverse comment(s) on this partial 

deletion action, we will not take further 

action on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. If we receive adverse 

comment(s), we will withdraw the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

and it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Partial Deletion based on this Notice 

of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

which is located in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
36698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 125 / Monday, June 30, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: June 10, 2014. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15256 Filed 6–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; 

4500030113] 

RIN 1018–AY98 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final 

Determination on the Proposed 

Endangered Status for the Northern 

Long-Eared Bat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

6-month extension of the final 

determination of whether to list the 

northern long-eared bat (Myotis 

septentrionalis) as endangered. We also 

reopen the comment period on the 

proposed rule to list the species. We are 

taking this action based on substantial 

disagreement regarding the sufficiency 

or accuracy of the available data 

relevant to our determination regarding 

the proposed listing, making it 

necessary to solicit additional 

information by reopening the comment 

period for 60 days. Comments 

previously submitted need not be 

resubmitted as they are already 

incorporated into the public record and 

will be fully considered in the final rule. 

We will publish a listing determination 

on or before April 2, 2015. 

DATES: The comment period end date is 

August 29, 2014. If you comment using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES), you must submit your 

comments by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time 

on the closing date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–2011– 

0024, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, in the Search 

panel on the left side of the screen, 

under the Document Type heading, 

click on the Proposed Rules link to 

locate this document. You may submit 

a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment 

Now!’’ If your comments will fit in the 

provided comment box, please use this 

feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as 

it is most compatible with our comment 

review procedures. If you attach your 

comments as a separate document, our 

preferred file format is Microsoft Word. 

If you attach multiple comments (such 

as form letters), our preferred format is 

a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel. 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R5–ES–2011–0024; Division of 

Policy and Directives Management; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. 

Fairfax Drive, MS 2042–PDM; 

Arlington, VA 22203. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Information Requested section, 

below, for more details). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Mandell, Deputy Field Supervisor, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities 

Ecological Services Office, 4101 

American Blvd. East, Bloomington, MN 

55425; telephone (612) 725–3548, ext. 

2201; or facsimile (612) 725–3609. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 2, 2013, we published a 

proposed rule to list the northern longeared bat as an endangered species (78 

FR 61046) under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act; 

16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). That proposal 

had a 60-day comment period, ending 

December 2, 2013. On December 2, 

2013, we extended the proposal’s 

comment period for an additional 30 

days, ending January 2, 2014 (78 FR 

72058). For a description of previous 

Federal actions concerning the northern 

long-eared bat, please refer to the 

October 2, 2013, proposed listing rule. 

We also solicited and received 

independent scientific review of the 

information contained in the proposed 

rule from peer reviewers with expertise 

in the northern long-eared bat or similar 

species biology, in accordance with our 

July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR 

34270). 

Section 4(b)(6) of the Act and its 

implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.17(a) require that we take one of 

three actions within 1 year of a 

proposed listing and concurrent 

proposed designation of critical habitat: 

(1) Finalize the proposed rule; (2) 

withdraw the proposed rule; or (3) 

extend the final determination by not 

more than 6 months, if there is 

substantial disagreement regarding the 

sufficiency or accuracy of the available 

data relevant to the determination. 

Since the publication of the October 

2, 2013, proposed listing rule, there has 

been substantial disagreement regarding 

the best available science as it relates to 

the northern long-eared bat’s current 

and predicted population trends and 

threats. Differing interpretations of the 

accuracy and sufficiency of the existing 

information on white-nose syndrome, 

which has been identified as the 

primary threat to the species, have led 

to disagreement regarding the current 

status of the species. In particular, some 

commenters raised questions regarding 

the certainty of scientific information 

used in the proposed listing rule. For 

example, some raised questions about: 

The probability and likely rate of whitenose syndrome spreading to currently 

unaffected areas; how or whether the 

disease will impact the northern longeared bat in currently unaffected or 

recently affected areas within its range; 

or how existing scientific models 

predict such factors. Some commenters 

stated that some portions of the species’ 

range where white-nose syndrome has 

been present in hibernacula for several 

years have yet to see declines in the 

species’ numbers similar to what was 

observed in the Northeast. 

There is substantial scientific 

uncertainty and disagreement about the 

Service’s analysis or interpretation of 

the data, specifically in how and to 

what extent white-nose syndrome will 

spread and affect the northern-long 

eared bat across its range, which has a 

bearing on our listing determination. As 

a result of these comments, we find that 

there is substantial disagreement 

regarding the sufficiency or accuracy of 

the available data relevant to our listing 

determination. Therefore, in 

consideration of these disagreements, 

we have determined that a 6-month 

extension of the final determination for 

this rulemaking is necessary, and we are 

hereby extending the final 

determination for 6 months in order to 

solicit and consider information that 

will help to clarify these issues and to 

fully analyze information regarding 

available data that are relevant to our 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS