20550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

hydraulic monitoring, additional 

hydrogeologic investigations, 

installation of additional monitoring 

wells, and a contingency plan. The 

confirmatory sampling report was 

submitted in January 1999 and the 

hydraulic investigation results were 

submitted in April 1999. The results of 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

analysis from all groundwater 

monitoring events post intermittent 

pumping mode have shown no 

exceedences of contaminant 

concentrations in either the upper or 

lower aquifers above the established 

cleanup levels. 

There are two deed restrictions 

associated with the entire Spiegelberg 

property and encompass the former 

footprint of the landfill. One deed 

restriction prohibits activities on the 

Spiegelberg Site that may interfere with 

the remedy. The Site is cleaned up; 

therefore, this deed restriction can be 

removed from the property. There is a 

second deed restriction on the 

Spiegelberg property for the adjoining 

Rasmussen’s Dump Superfund Site 

remedy. This deed restriction prohibits 

interfering with existing or future 

monitoring wells on the Spiegelberg 

property needed to implement and 

monitor the Rasmussen’s Dump Site 

groundwater remedy. These deed 

restrictions are not required for the 

Spiegelberg CERCLA remedy; however 

the second institutional control related 

to the Rasmussen’s Dump Site will 

remain in place until the contaminated 

groundwater from the Rasmussen’s 

Dump Site is remediated. 

No operation and maintenance is 

needed for the Spiegelberg Site since the 

remedial actions restored both siterelated contaminated soils and 

groundwater to levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Any monitoring done at the 

Spiegelberg property is done in 

conjunction with the Rasmussen’s 

Dump Superfund Site remedy. 

Five-Year Review 

Five-Year Review (FYR) reports were 

written in 2000 and 2005. The 2000 FYR 

concluded that the implemented 

remedy is protective of human health 

and the environment. The on-site 

groundwater treatment system was 

operating as described in the 

Spiegelberg Landfill Site ROD. This FYR 

recommended continuing the 

monitoring requirements from the 

Statement of Work (SOW) which 

included four consecutive semi-annual 

sampling events. The confirmation 

monitoring period consisted of twelve 

monitoring events from September 1998 

to December 2004. 

The 2005 FYR also found the remedy 

to be protective of human health and the 

environment. It concluded that the 

confirmation monitoring period (post 

intermittent pumping monitoring) 

included twelve monitoring events 

since 1998, to demonstrate continued 

compliance with the 1998 groundwater 

Cleanup Standards. The 2005 FYR also 

concluded, ‘‘This is the final Five-Year 

Review for the Spiegelberg Site. 

Groundwater treatment has restored the 

aquifer to clean-up standards. Delisting, 

more formally known as Deletion from 

the NPL, should be evaluated and 

pursued as appropriate.’’ 

Community Involvement 

Public 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. 

Documents in the deletion docket which 

EPA relied on for recommendation of 

the deletion of this site from the NPL are 

available to the public in the 

information repositories and at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states 

that a site may be deleted from the NPL 

when no further response action is 

appropriate. EPA, in consultation with 

the State of Michigan, has determined 

that the responsible parties have 

implemented all required response 

actions and that no further response 

action by responsible parties is 

appropriate. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence from State 

of Michigan through the MDEQ, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed. EPA received 

concurrence from the State of Michigan 

on December 17, 2010. Therefore, EPA 

is deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective June 13, 2011 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by May 13, 2011. If adverse comments 

are received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

Notice of Deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and it will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

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. 

Appendix B to Part 300 [Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Spiegelberg 

Landfill, Green Oak Township, MI.’’ 

[FR Doc. 2011–8879 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 1042 

Control of Emissions From New and 

In-Use Marine Compression-Ignition 

Engines and Vessels 

CFR Correction 

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 1000 to End, revised as 

of July 1, 2010, on page 240, in 

§ 1042.901, the definition of ‘‘New 

vessel’’ is reinstated to read as follows: 

§ 1042.901 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

New vessel means any of the 

following: 

(1) A vessel for which the ultimate 

purchaser has never received the 

equitable or legal title. The vessel is no 

longer new when the ultimate purchaser 

receives this title or it is placed into 

service, whichever comes first. 

(2) For vessels with no Category 3 

engines, a vessel that has been modified 

such that the value of the modifications 

exceeds 50 percent of the value of the 

modified vessel, excluding temporary 

modifications (as defined in this 

section). The value of the modification 

is the difference in the assessed value of 

the vessel before the modification and 

the assessed value of the vessel after the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 71 / Wednesday, April 13, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 20551 

modification. The vessel is no longer 

new when it is placed into service. Use 

the following equation to determine if 

the fractional value of the modification 

exceeds 50 percent: 

Percent of value = [(Value after 

modification)(Value before 

modification)] × 100% ÷ (Value after 

modification) 

(3) For vessels with Category 3 

engines, a vessel that has undergone a 

modification that substantially alters the 

dimensions or carrying capacity of the 

vessel, changes the type of vessel, or 

substantially prolongs the vessel’s life. 

(4) An imported vessel that has 

already been placed into service, where 

it has an engine not covered by a 

certificate of conformity issued under 

this part at the time of importation that 

was manufactured after the 

requirements of this part start to apply 

(see § 1042.1). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–8794 Filed 4–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 65 

[Docket ID FEMA–2011–0002; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1181] 

Changes in Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule. 

SUMMARY: This interim rule lists 

communities where modification of the 

Base (1% annual-chance) Flood 

Elevations (BFEs) is appropriate because 

of new scientific or technical data. New 

flood insurance premium rates will be 

calculated from the modified BFEs for 

new buildings and their contents. 

DATES: These modified BFEs are 

currently in effect on the dates listed in 

the table below and revise the Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) in effect 

prior to this determination for the listed 

communities. 

From the date of the second 

publication of these changes in a 

newspaper of local circulation, any 

person has ninety (90) days in which to 

request through the community that the 

Deputy Federal Insurance and 

Mitigation Administrator reconsider the 

changes. The modified BFEs may be 

changed during the 90-day period. 

ADDRESSES: The modified BFEs for each 

community are available for inspection 

at the office of the Chief Executive 

Officer of each community. The 

respective addresses are listed in the 

table below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis 

Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 

Management Branch, Federal Insurance 

and Mitigation Administration, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–4064, or (e-mail) 

luis.rodriguez1@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

modified BFEs are not listed for each 

community in this interim rule. 

However, the address of the Chief 

Executive Officer of the community 

where the modified BFE determinations 

are available for inspection is provided. 

Any request for reconsideration must 

be based on knowledge of changed 

conditions or new scientific or technical 

data. 

The modifications are made pursuant 

to section 201 of the Flood Disaster 

Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, 

and are in accordance with the National 

Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 

4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65. 

For rating purposes, the currently 

effective community number is shown 

and must be used for all new policies 

and renewals. 

The modified BFEs are the basis for 

the floodplain management measures 

that the community is required either to 

adopt or to show evidence of being 

already in effect in order to qualify or 

to remain qualified for participation in 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP). 

These modified BFEs, together with 

the floodplain management criteria 

required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the 

minimum that are required. They 

should not be construed to mean that 

the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. The 

changes in BFEs are in accordance with 

44 CFR 65.4. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This interim rule is categorically 

excluded from the requirements of 44 

CFR part 10, Environmental 

Consideration. An environmental 

impact assessment has not been 

prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood 

elevation determinations are not within 

the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required. 

Regulatory Classification. This 

interim rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under the criteria of 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This interim rule involves no policies 

that have federalism implications under 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This interim rule meets the 

applicable standards of Executive Order 

12988. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65 

Flood insurance, Floodplains, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is 

amended to read as follows: 

PART 65—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 65 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376. 

§ 65.4 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 65.4 are amended as 

follows: 

State and county Location and case 

No. 

Date and name of newspaper 

where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification 

Community 

No. 

Idaho: 

Ada ................... Unincorporated 

areas of Ada 

County (10–10– 

0128P).

Oct. 25, 2010, Nov. 1, 2010, 

The Idaho Statesman.

Mr. Fred Tilman, Chairman, Ada County 

Board of Commissioners, Ada County 

Courthouse, 200 West Front Street, 3rd 

Floor, Boise, ID 83702.

March 1, 2011 ................ 160001 

Ada ................... City of Meridian (10– 

10–0128P).

Oct. 25, 2010, Nov. 1, 2010, 

The Idaho Statesman.

The Honorable Tammy de Weerd, Mayor, 

City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642.

March 1, 2011 ................ 160180 

Illinois: 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES