### 35543 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Notices

subpart Q. A state or tribe that chooses to apply for program authorization must submit a complete application to the appropriate regional EPA office for review. Those applications will be reviewed by EPA within 180 days of receipt of the complete application. To receive EPA approval, a state or tribe must demonstrate that its program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the federal program, and provides for adequate enforcement under section 404(b) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2684(b). EPA’s regulations at 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q provide the detailed requirements a state or tribal program must meet in order to obtain EPA approval.
III. Tribal Program Description Summary

The following is the Tribe’s proposed TSCA Lead-Based Paint program summary, which the Bois Forte Tribe prepared as a required part of its application:

The Bois Forte has adopted by Resolution # 6–2011, the ordinance entitled Bois Forte Lead Program in order to provide clear and specific authority and guidance for regulating renovation requirements, and pre-renovation notification requirements and lead-based paint activities, including assessment, inspection, and abatement of lead-based paint on the Bois Forte Reservation. Penalties for non-compliance are established. The ordinance targets all buildings located on the
Bois Forte Reservation.

The ordinance is designed to be at least as protective as the federal law and provide for adequate enforcement of all provisions through a schedule of flexible remedies. This is accomplished through a combination of Tribe-specific requirements (training accreditation) that are identical to the federal regulations and through incorporation by reference of other required federal elements (certification of individuals, pre-renovation notification activities, renovation, and definitions of lead-based paint hazards). Also incorporated by reference are the federal definitions with the notable expansion of the definition of target housing to include all reservation buildings.

The ordinance contains enforcement and compliance requirements consisting of a schedule of flexible remedies and an appeals

process.

The Bois Forte Reservation Lead Program request for federal delegation of authority is a natural application of tribal sovereign power over environmental regulatory activities on the Tribe’s lands for the health, welfare, and safety of community members. EPA believes that the Tribe’s program description, above, together with the rest of the application, demonstrates adequate civil regulatory jurisdiction over the matter and entities regulated.
IV. Federal Overfilling

Section 404(b) of TSCA makes it unlawful for any person to violate, or fail or refuse to comply with, any requirement of an approved state or tribal program. Therefore, if EPA approves the Bois Forte Lead Program application, EPA reserves the right to exercise its enforcement authority under TSCA against a violation of, or a failure or refusal to comply with, any requirement of the Bois Forte Lead Program to the extent that such requirement is consistent with federal law.
List of Subjects

Environmental Protection, Hazardous Substances, Lead, Renovation Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 10, 2014. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 2014–14591 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0634; FRL–9912–72– Region–9]** 

**Notice of Decision To Issue Clean Air Act PSD Permit for Sierra Pacific**  **Industries-Anderson Division**

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

**ACTION :**  Notice of final agency action.

**SUMMARY :**  This notice announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 issued a final permit decision for a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to Sierra Pacific Industries for the Sierra Pacific Industries-Anderson Division (SPI-Anderson) facility.

**DATES :**  EPA Region 9 issued a final PSD permit decision for the SPI-Anderson facility April 25, 2014. The PSD permit is effective on June 6, 2014. Pursuant to section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), judicial review of this final permit decision, to the extent it is available, may be sought by filing a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit within 60 days of June 23, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Documents relevant to the above-referenced permit are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. To arrange for viewing of these documents, call Shaheerah Kelly at (415) 947–4156.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Shaheerah Kelly, Permits Office (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, (415) 947–4156, kelly.shaheerah@epa.gov. Key portions of the administrative record for this decision (including the final permit, all public comments, EPA’s responses to the public comments, and additional supporting information) are available through a link at Region 9’s Web site, www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9- permits-issued.html#psd, or at www.regulations.gov (Docket ID #EPA– R09–OAR–2011–0978). Anyone who wishes to review the EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB or Board) decision described below or documents in the EAB’s electronic docket for its decision related to this matter can obtain them at http:// www.epa.gov/eab/

.

Notice Of Final Action And Supplementary Information: On April 25, 2014, EPA Region 9 issued its final permit decision (PSD Permit No. SAC 12–01) to SPI authorizing the construction and operation of a new 31 megawatt biomass and natural gas-fired cogeneration unit and auxiliary equipment at the SPI-Anderson facility in Anderson, California. EPA Region 9 had issued a previous decision regarding this project, on February 19, 2013. After petitions for review of that decision were filed with the EAB, the Board remanded the permit to EPA Region 9 in part and directed EPA Region 9 to reopen the permit proceedings to hold a public hearing, issue a final permit decision and respond to any new comments received during the hearing. See, In re Sierra Pacific Industries (Anderson Processing Facility), PSD Appeal Nos. 13–01 to 13– 04, slip op. at 67 (EAB July 18, 2013). The EAB denied review of all other
issues.

Following these events, we revised the PSD permit by including GHG emission limits and related requirements, as requested by SPI. Following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacatur of EPA’s deferral of biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from PSD requirements, see, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in August 2013, SPI-Anderson submitted to EPA a supplemental PSD application for GHG emissions. EPA Region 9 revised the PSD permit to include GHG emission limits and related requirements; we also revised certain other conditions (primarily related to monitoring, performance testing, and recordkeeping) to address minor technical issues we had identified since February 2013. We provided notice of public comment of the proposed PSD permit and a public


### 35544 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 120 / Monday, June 23, 2014 / Notices

hearing per 40 CFR 124 on November 8, 2013. In response to the EAB remand, we held a public hearing on December 10, 2013. We accepted public comments on the proposed PSD permit from November 8, 2013 until January 10,

2014.

On April 25, 2014, we issued the final PSD permit, our responses to public comments, and other key documents relevant to the final PSD permit in accordance with 40 CFR 52.21 and 40 CFR part 124. In our correspondence and notifications regarding the final PSD permit, we stated that the final permit decision will become effective 30 days after the service of notice of the decision unless our decision is appealed to the EAB pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19. Three petitions were submitted to the EAB. On June 5, 2014, the EAB dismissed these petitions for review of the final PSD permit decision for lack of jurisdiction.

EPA Region 9 has completed the remand proceedings in response to the EAB’s Order, pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(l)(2), and is issuing the final permit decision granting PSD PermitNo. SAC 12–01 to SPI for the SPIAnderson facility. All conditions of the PSD permit issued on April 25, 2014 are final and effective on June 6, 2014.

Dated: June 9, 2014. Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2014–14596 Filed 6–20–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**[EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0135; FRL–9912–73– OW]** 

**Extension of Request for Scientific Views for Updated National**  **Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health** 

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

**ACTION :**  Notice; extension of the request for scientific views.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the comment period for the draft updated national recommended water quality criteria for the protection of human health announced in a previous notice entitled ‘‘Updated National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health.’’ In response to stakeholder requests, the EPA is extending the period of time in which the Agency will accept scientific views for an additional 30 days. **DATES :**  Scientific views must be received on or before August 13, 2014. The comment period was originally scheduled to end on July 14, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OW–2014–0135, by one of the following methods:

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting

comments.

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0135.

• Hand Delivery: Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC, 20004, Attention Docket EPA–HQ–OW–2014–0135. Deliveries to the docket are accepted only during their normal hours of operation: 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. For access to docket materials, call (202) 566–2426, to schedule an appointment.

• Email: ow-docket@epa.gov; Attention Docket No. EPA–HQ–OW– 2014–0135. To ensure that EPA can properly respond to comments, commenters should cite the section(s) or chemical(s) in draft updates to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed, and must submit any references cited in their comments. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment. Electronic files should avoid any form of encryption and should be free of any defects or viruses.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2014– 0135. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 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 www.regulations.gov

. The 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 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 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 hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202)

566–2426.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Heidi Bethel at U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Mail Code 4304T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 566–2054; or email: bethel.heidi@epa.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  On May 13, 2014, the EPA announced the availability of draft updated national recommended water quality criteria for the protection of human health in a previous notice entitled ‘‘Updated National Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health’’ in the Federal Register (79 FR 27303). EPA updated its national recommended water quality criteria for human health for ninety-four chemical pollutants to reflect the latest scientific information and current EPA policies. The draft updated criteria are based on EPA’s current methodology for deriving human health criteria as described in ‘‘Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health (2000)’’ and do not establish new policy. EPA’s recommended water quality criteria