82390 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Notices 

confirmed the waiver applicant’s claim 

that there is no American-made 15 HP 

vertical hollow shaft electric motor 

available for use in a water supply well. 

Therefore, EPA Region 6 concludes that 

the District meets the ‘‘specifications in 

project plans and design.’’ 

EPA has determined that the District’s 

waiver request is timely even though the 

request was made after the construction 

contract was signed. Consistent with the 

direction of the OMB Guidance at 2 CFR 

176.120, EPA has evaluated the 

District’s request to determine if the 

request constitutes a late request. EPA 

will generally regard waiver requests 

with respect to components that were 

specified in the bid solicitation or in a 

general/primary construction contract as 

‘‘late’’ if submitted after the contract 

date. However, in this case EPA has 

determined that the District’s request, 

though made after the contract date, 

may be treated as timely. This request 

is submitted after the contract date 

because the District was unable to 

specify the exact size of the motor until 

after the development of the new well 

and the completion of the pumping test. 

The need for a waiver was not 

determined until after the well 

contractor confirmed that there was no 

domestically made 15 HP vertical 

hollow shaft electric motor available to 

meet the project specifications. 

Accordingly, EPA will evaluate the 

request as a timely request. 

The April 28, 2009 EPA HQ 

Memorandum, Implementation of Buy 

American provisions of Public Law 

111–5, the ‘‘American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009’’, defines 

reasonably available quantity as ‘‘the 

quantity of iron, steel, or relevant 

manufactured good is available or will 

be available at the time needed and 

place needed, and in the proper form or 

specification as specified in the project 

plans and design.’’ The District has 

incorporated specific technical design 

requirements for installation of electric 

motor in its water supply well. 

Therefore, it meets the requirements of 

the ‘‘satisfactory quality’’ criterion for 

requesting a waiver from the Buy 

American provisions of Public Law 

111–5. 

The purpose of the ARRA is to 

stimulate economic recovery in part by 

funding current infrastructure 

construction, not to delay projects that 

are ‘‘shovel ready’’ by requiring utilities, 

such as the District, to revise their 

standards and specifications, institute a 

new bidding process, and potentially 

choose a more costly, less efficient 

project. The imposition of ARRA Buy 

American requirements on such projects 

otherwise eligible for State Revolving 

Fund assistance would result in 

unreasonable delay and thus displace 

the ‘‘shovel ready’’ status for this project. 

To further delay construction is in 

direct conflict with a fundamental 

economic purpose of the ARRA, which 

is to create or retain jobs. 

The Region 6 Water Quality 

Protection Division has reviewed this 

waiver request, and has determined that 

the supporting documentation provided 

by the District is sufficient to meet the 

criteria listed under ARRA, Section 

1605(b), Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) regulations at 2 CFR 

176.60–176.170, and in the April 28, 

2009, memorandum, ‘‘Implementation 

of Buy American provisions of Public 

Law 111–5, the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. The basis for 

this project waiver is the authorization 

provided in ARRA, Section 1605(b)(2). 

Due to the lack of production of this 

product in the United States in 

sufficient and reasonably available 

quantities and of a satisfactory quality 

in order to meet the District’s technical 

specifications, a waiver from the Buy 

American requirement is justified. 

EPA headquarters’ March 31, 2009 

Delegation of Authority Memorandum 

provided Regional Administrators with 

the authority to issue exceptions to 

Section 1605 of ARRA within the 

geographic boundaries of their 

respective regions and with respect to 

requests by individual grant recipients. 

Having established both a proper basis 

to specify the particular good required 

for this project, and that this 

manufactured good was not available 

from a producer in the United States, 

the District is hereby granted a waiver 

from the Buy American requirements of 

ARRA, Section 1605(a) of Public Law 

111–5 for the purchase of a 15 HP 

vertical hollow shaft electric motor, 

using ARRA funds, as specified in the 

District’s request. This supplementary 

information constitutes the detailed 

written justification required by ARRA, 

Section 1605(c), for waivers ‘‘based on a 

finding under subsection (b).’’ 

Authority: Public Law 111–5, section 1605. 

Dated: December 17, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32927 Filed 12–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9246–2] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement; Request for Public 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

7413(g), notice is hereby given of a 

proposed settlement agreement to 

address lawsuits filed by the following 

groups of Petitioners: (1) The States of 

New York, California, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and Washington, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the 

District of Columbia, and the City of 

New York (collectively ‘‘State 

Petitioners’’); and (2) Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Sierra Club, and 

Environmental Integrity Project 

(collectively ‘‘Environmental 

Petitioners’’). State and Environmental 

Petitioners filed their lawsuits in the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, which were 

consolidated under the lead case 

American Petroleum Institute, et al. v. 

EPA, No. 08–1277 (DC Cir.). Petitioners 

filed petitions for review of EPA’s final 

rule entitled ‘‘Standards of Performance 

for Petroleum Refineries,’’ published at 

73 FR 35838 (June 24, 2008). The 

proposed settlement agreement 

establishes deadlines for EPA’s 

proposed and final actions for meeting 

its obligations in the agreement. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by January 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2010–1045, online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– 

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Notices 82391 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Stahle, Air and Radiation Law 

Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–1272; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

e-mail address: stahle.susan@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreement 

The State and Environmental 

Petitioners filed petitions for judicial 

review of the final rule promulgated 

under the Clean Air Act (‘‘CAA’’) section 

111, 42 U.S.C. 7411, entitled, ‘‘Standards 

of Performance for Petroleum Refineries, 

Final Rule,’’ published at 73 FR 35838 

(June 24, 2008). These petitions for 

review currently are pending before the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit in consolidated cases 

under the lead case American Petroleum 

Institute, et al. v. EPA, No. 08–1277. The 

Final Rule includes amendments to the 

current standards of performance (40 

CFR part 60, subpart J) and separate 

standards of performance for new 

process units (40 CFR part 60, subpart 

Ja) at petroleum refineries. In 

connection with this Final Rule, EPA 

declined to establish standards of 

performance for greenhouse gas 

emissions (‘‘GHGs’’). 

The Environmental Petitioners also 

filed a petition for administrative 

reconsideration pursuant to CAA 

section 307(d)(7)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

7607(d)(7)(B), and EPA granted 

reconsideration with respect to some of 

the issues raised in that petition for 

reconsideration. 73 FR 55751 (Sept. 26, 

2008). On December 22, 2008, EPA 

published a proposed rule concerning 

issues that were raised in the 

Environmental Petitioners’ 

administrative petition for 

reconsideration. 73 FR 78522 (Dec. 22, 

2008). On December 29, 2009, EPA 

granted reconsideration of all remaining 

issues that were raised in the petitions 

for administrative reconsideration, 

including the failure to regulate GHGs. 

Under the terms of the proposed 

settlement agreement, within 3 business 

days after this Settlement Agreement is 

executed, the Parties shall file a joint 

motion with the Court notifying it of 

this agreement and requesting that the 

Petitioners’ petitions for review be held 

in abeyance pending completion of the 

process under CAA section 113(g) as set 

forth in the agreement. Also pursuant to 

the proposed settlement agreement, EPA 

shall sign a proposed rule by December 

10, 2011, that includes at a minimum, 

the following: (A) Standards of 

performance for GHGs pursuant to CAA 

section 111(b), 42 U.S.C. 7411(b), for 

affected facilities at refineries that are 

subject to the following NSPS: (1) 

Subparts J and Ja, (2) subpart Db, (3) 

subpart Dc, (4) subpart GGG, and (5) 

subpart QQQ, and emissions guidelines 

for GHGs pursuant to CAA section 

111(d), 42 U.S.C. 7411(d), and 40 CFR 

60.22, from existing affected facilities at 

refineries in the source categories 

covered by those NSPS subparts; (B) a 

review of the emission standards set 

forth in 40 CFR Part 63, subpart UUU, 

pursuant to CAA sections 112(d)(6) and 

(f)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) and (f)(2); 

and (C) a resolution of all other issues 

raised in Environmental Petitioners’ 

August 25, 2008 petition for 

administrative reconsideration. EPA 

shall sign a final rule by November 10, 

2012, that includes final determinations 

with regard to each of the elements in 

the proposed rule. If EPA fulfills its 

obligations, the State and 

Environmental Petitioners shall, no later 

than 5 business days after the date on 

which that final rule takes effect, file an 

appropriate pleading seeking the 

dismissal of Petitions for Review Nos. 

08–1279 and 08–1281, with prejudice, 

in accordance with Rule 42(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

settlement agreement from persons who 

are not named as parties or intervenors 

to the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

settlement agreement if the comments 

disclose facts or considerations that 

indicate that such consent is 

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Act. Unless EPA or the Department 

of Justice determines that consent to this 

settlement agreement should be 

withdrawn, the terms of the agreement 

will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement Agreement 

A. How can I get a copy of the 

settlement agreement? 

The official public docket for this 

action (identified by Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OGC–2010–1045) contains a 

copy of the proposed settlement 

agreement. The official public docket is 

available for public viewing at the 

Office of Environmental Information 

(OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, 

EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 OEI Docket is (202) 566– 

1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may use the 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once in the 

system, key in the appropriate docket 

identification number then select 

‘‘search’’. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change, 

unless the comment contains 

copyrighted material, CBI, or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in the electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and to whom do I submit 

comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
82392 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 250 / Thursday, December 30, 2010 / Notices 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. 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. 

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov 

Web site to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, e-mail address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (e-mail) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’ 

system. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through http://www.regulations.gov, 

your e-mail address is automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Dated: December 23, 2010. 

Patricia A. Embrey, 

Acting Associate General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32929 Filed 12–29–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9246–1] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement, 

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement; Request for Public 

Comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘CAA’’ or the ‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), 

notice is hereby given of a proposed 

settlement agreement between the 

following groups of Petitioners: (1) The 

States of New York, California, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New 

Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, 

Vermont, and Washington, the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the 

District of Columbia, and the City of 

New York (collectively ‘‘State 

Petitioners’’); and (2) Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Sierra Club, and 

Environmental Defense Fund 

(collectively ‘‘Environmental 

Petitioners’’), and Respondent, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’) (collectively ‘‘the Parties’’). This 

proposed settlement is intended to 

resolve threatened litigation over the 

EPA’s failure to respond to United 

States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit’s remand in State of 

New York, et al. v. EPA, No. 06–1322. 

Under the terms of the proposed 

settlement agreement deadlines have 

been established for EPA to take action. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreements must be 

received by January 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID number EPA– 

HQ–OGC–2010–1057, online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; by mail to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD– 

ROM should be formatted in Word or 

ASCII file, avoiding the use of special 

characters and any form of encryption, 

and may be mailed to the mailing 

address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elliott Zenick, Air and Radiation Law 

Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 

564–1822; fax number (202) 564–5603; 

e-mail address: zenick.elliott@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement Agreements 

EPA published a final action entitled 

‘‘Standards of Performance for Electric 

Utility Steam Generating Units, 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units, and Small 

Industrial-Commercial-Institutional 

Steam Generating Units,’’ 71 FR 9866 

(Feb. 27, 2006) (the ‘‘Final Rule’’), which 

included amendments to the standards 

of performance for electric utility steam 

generating units subject to 40 CFR part 

60, subpart Da (‘‘EGUs’’) but did not 

establish standards of performance for 

greenhouse gas (‘‘GHG’’) emissions. The 

State and Environmental Petitioners 

filed petitions for judicial review of the 

Final Rule under the CAA Section 111, 

42 U.S.C. 7411, contending, inter alia, 

that the Final Rule was required to 

include standards of performance for 

GHG emissions from EGUs. The 

portions of State and Environmental 

Petitioners’ petitions for review of the 

Final Rule that related to GHG 

emissions were severed from other 

petitions for review of the Final Rule, 

and were formerly pending before the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (the 

‘‘Court’’) under the caption State of New 

York, et al. v. EPA, No. 06–1322. 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 

(2007), EPA requested remand of the 

Final Rule to EPA for further 

consideration of the issues related to 

GHG emissions in light of that decision 

and the Court remanded the Final Rule 

to EPA for further proceedings. The 

State Petitioners submitted letters to 

EPA dated June 16, 2008 and August 4, 

2009 inquiring as to the status of EPA’s 

action on the remand and stating their 

position that EPA had a legal obligation 

to act promptly to comply with the 

requirements of Section 111. The 

Environmental Petitioners submitted a 

letter to EPA on August 20, 2010 

seeking commitments to rulemaking on 

GHG emissions from EGUs as a means 

of avoiding further litigation. These 

letters are included in the docket for 

this notice. 

Under the proposed settlement 

agreement, EPA will sign by July 26, 

2011, and will transmit to the Office of 

the Federal Register within five business 

days, a proposed rule under section 

111(b) that includes standards of 

performance for GHGs for new and 

modified EGUs that are subject to 40 

CFR part 60, subpart Da. EPA will also 

sign by July 26, 2011, and will transmit 

to the Office of the Federal Register 

within five business days, a proposed 

rule under section 111(d) that includes 

emissions guidelines for GHGs from 

existing EGUs that would have been 

subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart Da if 

they were new sources. Under the 

proposed settlement agreement EPA 

will take final action with respect to the 

proposed rule no later than May 26, 

2012. The proposed settlement 

agreement provides that EPA’s 

fulfillment of its obligations under the 

agreement shall result in a full and final 

release of any claims that State and 

Environmental Petitioners may have 

under any provision of law to compel 

EPA to respond to the Court’s Remand 

Order with respect to GHG emissions 

from EGUs. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will accept written 

comments relating to the proposed 

settlement agreement from persons who 

were not named as parties or 

intervenors to the litigation in question. 

EPA or the Department of Justice may 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES