### 34407 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Notices

of and, where necessary, to address tribal implications of the MSGP. In the course of this consultation, the EPA undertook the following activities:

• December 11, 2012— EPA presented an overview of the 2008 MSGP and potential changes for the renewal of the MSGP to the National Tribal Caucus.

• December 12, 2012— EPA presented an overview of the current MSGP and potential changes for the renewal of the MSGP to the National Tribal Water Council.

• December 12, 2012— EPA mailed notification letters to tribal leaders initiating consultation and coordination on the renewal of the MSGP. The initiation letter was posted on the tribal portal Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ tribal/consultation.

• January 15, 2013— EPA held an informational teleconference open to all tribal representatives, and reserved the last part of the teleconference for official consultation comments. EPA also invited tribes to submit written comments on the permit renewal. The presentation was posted on the tribal portal Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ tribal/consultation.
VI. Analysis of Economic Impacts

The EPA expects the economic impact on entities covered under this permit, including small businesses, to be minimal. A copy of the EPA’s economic analysis, titled, ‘‘Cost Impact Analysis for the Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)’’ is available in the docket for this permit. The economic impact analysis indicates that while there will be some incremental increase in the costs of complying with the new permit, these costs will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

Dated: June 4, 2015. Deborah Szaro, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region

1. Dated: June 4, 2015. Jose  ́ C. Font, Director, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, EPA Region 2.

Dated: June 4, 2015. Jon M. Capacasa,
Director, Water Protection Division, EPA Region 3. Dated: June 4, 2015. Tinka G. Hyde, Director, Water Division, EPA Region 5.

Dated: June 4, 2015. William K. Honker, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6.

Dated: June 4, 2015. Karen Flournoy, Director, Water, Wetlands, and Pesticides Division, EPA Region 7.

Dated: June 4, 2015. Darcy O’Connor, Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.

Dated: June 4, 2015. Nancy Woo, Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region
9. Dated: June 4, 2015. Daniel D. Opalski, Director, Office of Water and Watersheds, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2015–14792 Filed 6–15–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[FRL–9929–20–Region–6]**

**Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to**  **State Operating Permit for Valero Refining—Meraux, LLC in Louisiana** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice of final action.

**SUMMARY :**  Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2) and 40 CFR 70.8(d), the EPA Administrator signed an Order, dated May 29, 2015, denying the petition asking EPA to object to an operating permit issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality for the Meraux petroleum refinery (Title V operating permit number 2500–00001–V5). The EPA’s May 29, 2015 Order responds to the petition submitted by the Concerned Citizens Around Murphy, represented by the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, on April 3, 2012. Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the Orders that deny issues raised in the petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307(b) of the Act.

**ADDRESSES :**  You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733.

EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section to view copies of the final Orders, petitions, and other supporting information. You may view the hard copies Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Additionally, the final May 29, 2015 Order is available electronically at: http://www.epa.gov/ region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/

meraux

_response2012.pdf.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Kyndall Cox at (214) 665–8567, email address: cox.kyndall@epa.gov or the above EPA, Region 6 address.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The CAA affords EPA a 45-day period to review, and object, as appropriate, to a title V operating permit proposed by a state permitting authority. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator, within 60 days after the expiration of this review period, to object to a title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. Petitions must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues during the comment period or unless the grounds for the issue arose after this period.

EPA received the petition from the Concerned Citizens Around Murphy (CCAM) on April 3, 2012 (2012 Petition), which is the second petition that EPA received from CCAM concerning this facility’s title V permit. EPA previously received a petition from CCAM regarding the 2009 Meraux Title V Modification Permit (2009 Permit) on December 10, 2009 (2009 Petition), and responded to that petition in a prior order (2011 Order) that granted in part and denied in part the request for an objection. Within 90 days after that


### 34408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 115 / Tuesday, June 16, 2015 / Notices

order, the LDEQ issued a response to EPA’s title V order (2011 LDEQ Response). The 2012 Petition requests that the Administrator object to the 2009 Permit on the general basis that ‘‘(the) LDEQ has not shown the facility’s emissions will not trigger Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements.’’ More specifically, the 2012 Petition contends that the netting analysis LDEQ conducted for the BenFree Unit project and used to determine that the project did not trigger PSD review was incomplete because it only included emissions from normal operations to the North Flare. The 2012 Petition states that the netting analysis calculations ‘‘should have included emergency emissions’’ unless such emissions are subject to ‘‘legally and practicably enforceable limits.’’ The 2012 Petition also contends that LDEQ failed to issue a revised permit that satisfies the EPA’s objections in the 2011 Order. The Order issued on May 29, 2015 responds to the 2012 Petition and explains the basis for EPA’s decisions.

Dated: June 5, 2015. Ron Curry, Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015–14790 Filed 6–15–15; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0321; FRL–9928–13]**

**Pesticide Maintenance Fee; Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily**  **Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations. EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments within the comment period that would merit its further review of the requests, or unless the registrants withdraw its requests. If these requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed in this notice will be permitted after the registrations have been cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with the terms as described in the final order.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before December 14, 2015.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0321, by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001.

Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. ATTN: Michael Yanchulis.

• Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http:// www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Michael Yanchulis, Information Technology and Resources Managment Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone number: (703) 347–0237; email address: yanchulis.michael@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/ comments.html. II. What action is the Agency taking?

This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from registrants to cancel 314 pesticide products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a) or 24(c) (7 U.S.C. 136v(c)). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of this unit.

Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register canceling all of the affected registrations.



### TABLE 

### 1—R EGISTRATIONS 

### W ITH 

### P ENDING 

### R EQUESTS FOR 

### CANCELLATION

Registration No. Company No. Product name Chemical name

100–793 ............ 100 Mefenoxam E ...................................................... Metalaxyl-M.
100–795 ............ 100 Subdue WSP Fungicide ...................................... Metalaxyl-M.
100–801 ............ 100 Ridomil Gold EC ................................................. Metalaxyl-M.
100–823 ............ 100 Ridomil Gold PC GR ........................................... Metalaxyl-M; Pentachloronitrobenzene.
100–958 ............ 100 Boundary Herbicide ............................................. Metribuzin; S-Metolachlor.
100–964 ............ 100 Medal Herbicide .................................................. S-Metolachlor.
100–965 ............ 100 Medal II Herbicide ............................................... S-Metolachlor.