16030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Notices 

1EPA has posted copies of this action at: http:// 

www.epa.gov/reg3artd/airregulations/delegate/ 

phdelegation.htm. 

2Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3rd 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008). 

FR 4181, January 29, 2002.) 1 EPA’s approval 

of that previous delegation included an 

approval of an AMS mechanism for obtaining 

automatic delegation of any future NESHAP 

regulations which AMS adopted unchanged 

from the Federal requirements. This 

mechanism is for AMS to submit a letter 

requesting additional delegations to EPA. 

In a letter dated August 5, 2011, AMS 

requested ‘‘delegation by reference’’ to 

implement and enforce the following 

additional NESHAP for area sources as in 40 

C.F.R. Part 63: 

1. Subpart BBBBBB—Gasoline Distribution 

Bulk Terminal, Bulk Plant and Pipeline 

Facilities. 

2. Subpart CCCCCC—Gasoline 

Distribution, Gasoline Dispensing Facilities. 

3. Subpart EEE—Hazardous Waste 

Combustors. 

4. Subpart HHHHHH—Paint Stripping and 

Miscellaneous Surface Coating. 

5. Subpart OOOOOO—Flexible 

Polyurethane Foam Fabrication and 

Production. 

6. Subpart VVV—Publicly Owned 

Treatment Works (POTW). 

7. Subpart WWWWW—Hospital Ethylene 

Oxide Sterilizers. 

8. Subpart ZZZZZ—Iron and Steel 

Foundries. 

AMS also requested ‘‘automatic 

delegation’’ of future amendments that EPA 

promulgates with respect to these NESHAP. 

AMS specified in its request letter that it 

was seeking delegation of the authority to 

implement and enforce these additional 

NESHAP and future amendments that EPA 

promulgates with respect to these NESHAP 

under its previously approved mechanism for 

obtaining delegation of additional NESHAP. 

On January 29, 2002, EPA initially 

delegated to AMS the authority to implement 

and enforce various NESHAP as found at 40 

CFR Part 63. In this action, EPA concluded 

that AMS had demonstrated, as required, that 

AMS met the general ‘‘up-front’’ criteria for 

approval which are set forth at 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.91(d). According to 40 C.F.R. 

§ 63.91(d)(2), ‘‘[o]nce a State has satisfied the 

§ 63.91(d) up-front approval requirements, it 

only needs to reference the previous 

demonstration and reaffirm that it still meets 

the criteria for any subsequent equivalency 

submittals.’’ 

In its August 5, 2011 request for delegation 

of additional area source NESHAP, AMS 

included a full new demonstration that it met 

the requirements of 40 CFR § 63.91(d). While 

a full new demonstration was not required, 

EPA finds that the full new demonstration 

meets the requirement for a reaffirmation that 

AMS continues to meet the up-front approval 

requirements of 40 CFR § 63.91(d). 

EPA finds that AMS has met the 

requirements to be automatically delegated 

the authority to implement and enforce the 

eight additional NESHAP for area sources 

specified in the listing above, as well as any 

future amendments EPA may promulgate 

with respect to them. Accordingly, EPA 

hereby delegates to AMS the authority to 

implement and enforce these eight additional 

NESHAP for area sources, as well as any 

future amendments EPA may make to them. 

This delegation to AMS is subject to the same 

terms of approval as set forth in EPA’s initial 

January 29, 2002 delegation to AMS of the 

authority to implement and enforce 

NESHAPs as found at 40 CFR Part 63. 

Please note that on December 19, 2008 in 

Sierra Club vs. EPA,2 the United States Court 

of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit vacated certain provisions of the 

General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63 relating 

to exemptions for startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction (SSM). On October 16, 2009, the 

Court issued the mandate vacating these SSM 

exemption provisions, which are found at 40 

CFR § 63.6(f)(1) and (h)(1). 

Accordingly, EPA no longer allows sources 

the SSM exemption as provided for in the 

vacated provisions at 40 CFR § 63.6(f)(1) and 

(h)(1), even though EPA has not yet formally 

removed the SSM exemption provisions from 

the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 63. 

Because AMS incorporated 40 CFR Part 63 by 

reference, AMS should also no longer allow 

sources to use the former SSM exemption 

from the General Provisions of 40 CFR Part 

63 due to the Court’s ruling in Sierra Club 

vs. EPA. 

EPA appreciates AMS’s continuing 

NESHAP implementation and enforcement 

efforts, and also AMS’s decision to take 

automatic delegation of eight additional and 

more recent NESHAP for area sources. 

If you have any questions, please contact 

me or Ms. Kathleen Cox, Associate Director, 

Office of Permits and Air Toxics, at 215–814– 

2173. 

Sincerely, 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

This notice acknowledges the update 

of AMS’s delegation of authority to 

implement and enforce NESHAP. 

Dated: March 6, 2012. 

Diana Esher, 

Director, Air Protection Division, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6559 Filed 3–16–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9649–8] 

FY2012 Supplemental Funding for 

Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund 

(RLF) Grantees 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of the availability of 

funds. 

SUMMARY: EPA’s Office of Brownfields 

and Land Revitalization (OBLR) plans to 

make available approximately $7 

million to provide supplemental funds 

to Revolving Loan Fund capitalization 

grants previously awarded 

competitively under section 104(k)(3) of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9604(k)(3). 

Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan 

Fund (BCRLF) pilots awarded under 

section 104(d)(1) of CERCLA that have 

not transitioned to section 104(k)(3) 

grants are not eligible to apply for these 

funds. EPA will consider awarding 

supplemental funding only to RLF 

grantees who have demonstrated an 

ability to deliver programmatic results 

by making at least one loan or subgrant. 

The award of these funds is based on 

the criteria described at CERCLA 

104(k)(4)(A)(ii). 

The Agency is now accepting requests 

for supplemental funding from RLF 

grantees. Requests for funding must be 

submitted to the appropriate EPA 

Regional Brownfields Coordinator 

(listed below) by April 18, 2012. 

Funding requests for hazardous 

substances and/or petroleum funding 

will be accepted. Specific information 

on submitting a request for RLF 

supplemental funding is described 

below and additional information may 

be obtained by contacting the EPA 

Regional Brownfields Coordinator. 

DATES: This action is effective March 19, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: A request for supplemental 

funding must be in the form of a letter 

addressed to the appropriate Regional 

Brownfields Coordinator (see listing 

below) with a copy to Megan Quinn, 

Quinn.Megan@epa.gov or U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., MC: 

5105T, Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Quinn, U.S. EPA, (202) 566–2773 

or the appropriate Brownfields Regional 

Coordinator. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Small Business Liability Relief 

and Brownfields Revitalization Act 

added section 104(k) to CERCLA to 

authorize federal financial assistance for 

brownfields revitalization, including 

grants for assessment, cleanup and job 

training. Section 104(k) includes a 

provision for the EPA to, among other 

things, award grants to eligible entities 

to capitalize Revolving Loan Funds and 

to provide loans and subgrants for 

brownfields cleanup. Section 

104(k)(4)(A)(ii) authorizes EPA to make 

additional grant funds available to RLF 

grantees for any year after the year for 

which the initial grant is made 

(noncompetitive RLF supplemental 

funding) taking into consideration: 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2012 / Notices 16031 

(I) The number of sites and number of 

communities that are addressed by the 

revolving loan fund; 

(II) The demand for funding by 

eligible entities that have not previously 

received a grant under this subsection; 

(III) The demonstrated ability of the 

eligible entity to use the revolving loan 

fund to enhance remediation and 

provide funds on a continuing basis; 

and 

(IV) Such other similar factors as the 

[Agency] considers appropriate to carry 

out this subsection. 

Eligibility 

In order to be considered for 

supplemental funding, grantees must 

demonstrate that they have expended 

existing funds and that they have a clear 

plan for quickly expending requested 

additional funds. Grantees must 

demonstrate that they have made at 

least one loan or subgrant prior to 

applying for this supplemental funding 

and have significantly depleted existing 

available funds. For FY2012, EPA 

defines ‘‘significantly depleted funds’’ 

as any grant where $250,000–$300,000 

or less remains uncommitted for single 

entities and $300,000–$400,000 or less 

remains uncommitted for states/large 

coalitions. Additionally, the RLF 

recipient must have demonstrated a 

need for supplemental funding based 

on, among other factors, the number of 

sites that will be addressed; 

demonstrated the ability to make loans 

and subgrants for cleanups that can be 

started and completed expeditiously 

(i.e. ‘‘shovel-ready’’ projects) and will 

lead to redevelopment; demonstrated 

the existence of additional leveraged 

funds to complete the project in a timely 

manner and move quickly from cleanup 

to redevelopment, including the use of 

tax incentives such as new market tax 

credits, direct funding or other 

resources to advance the project to 

completion; demonstrated the ability to 

administer and revolve the 

capitalization funding in the RLF grant; 

demonstrated an ability to use the RLF 

grant to address funding gaps for 

cleanup; and demonstrated that they 

have provided a community benefit 

from past and potential loan(s) and/or 

subgrant(s). Special consideration may 

be given to those communities affected 

by auto plant closures or other 

economic disruptions. Special 

consideration may also be given to those 

grantees that can demonstrate projects 

that have a clear prospect of aiding the 

in-sourcing of manufacturing capacity 

and keeping and/or adding jobs, or 

otherwise creating jobs, in the affected 

area. Applicants for supplemental 

funding must contact the appropriate 

Regional Brownfields Coordinator 

below to obtain information on the 

format for supplemental funding 

applications for their region. When 

requesting supplemental funding, 

applicants must specify whether they 

are seeking funding for sites 

contaminated by hazardous substances 

or petroleum. Applicants may request 

both types of funding. 

REGIONAL CONTACTS

Region & states Address/Phone number/Email 

EPA Region 1, Diane Kelley, 

Kelley.Diane@epa.gov.

CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, 

VT.

One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023, Phone 

(617) 918–1424, Fax (617) 918–1291. 

EPA Region 2, Lya Theodoratos, 

Theodoratos.Lya@epa.gov.

NJ, NY, PR, VI ........... 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007, Phone (212) 637– 

3260, Fax (212) 637–4360. 

EPA Region 3, Tom Stolle, 

Stolle.Tom@epa.gov.

DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, 

WV.

1650 Arch Street, Mail Code 3HS51, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103, Phone (215) 814–3129, Fax (215) 814–5518. 

EPA Region 4, Phil Vorsatz, 

Vorsatz.Philip@epa.gov.

AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, 

NC, SC, TN.

Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 10TH FL, Atlanta, 

GA 30303–8960, Phone (404) 562–8789 Fax (404) 562–8439. 

EPA Region 5, Deborah Orr, 

Orr.Deborah@epa.gov.

IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Mail Code SE–4J, Chicago, Illinois 

60604–3507, Phone (312) 886–7576, Fax (312) 886–7190. 

EPA Region 6, Mary Kemp, 

Kemp.Mary@epa.gov.

AR, LA, NM, OK, TX .. 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 (6SF–PB), Dallas, Texas 75202– 

2733, Phone (214) 665–8358, Fax (214) 665–6660. 

EPA Region 7, Susan Klein, 

Klein.Susan@epa.gov.

IA, KS, MO, NE .......... 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101, Phone (913) 551– 

7786 Fax (913) 551–8688. 

EPA Region 8, Dan Heffernan, 

Heffernan.Daniel@epa.gov.

CO, MT, ND, SC, UT, 

WY.

1595 Wynkoop Street (EPR–B), Denver, CO 80202–1129, Phone 

(303) 312–7074, Fax (303) 312–6065. 

EPA Region 9, Noemi Emeric-Ford, EmericFord.Noemi@epa.gov.AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, 

GU.

75 Hawthorne Street, WST–8, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone 

(213) 244–1821, Fax (415) 972–3364. 

EPA Region 10, Susan Morales, Morales.Susan@epa.gov.AK, ID, OR, WA .......... 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Mailstop: ECL–112 Seattle, WA 

98101, Phone (206) 553–7299, Fax (206) 553–0124. 

Dated: March 13, 2012. 

Gail A. Cooper, 

Acting Director, Office of Brownfields and 

Land Revitalization, Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6581 Filed 3–16–12; 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 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice and Request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort 

to reduce paperwork burden and as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3502– 

3520), the Federal Communications 

Commission invites the general public 

and other Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s). 

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 

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information collected; (d) ways to 


emcdonald on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES