46096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations hydrocarbons are first produced, through and including the last valve and associated safety equipment ( e. g., pressure safety sensors) on the last production facility on the OCS. ( 7) Any producer operating a pipeline that connects facilities on the OCS must comply with this subpart. ( 8) Any operator of a pipeline that has a valve on the OCS downstream ( landward) of the last production facility may ask in writing that the MMS Regional Supervisor recognize that valve as the last point MMS will exercise its regulatory authority. ( 9) A pipeline segment is not subject to MMS regulations for design, construction, operation, and maintenance if: ( i) It is downstream ( generally shoreward) of the last valve and associated safety equipment on the last production facility on the OCS; and ( ii) It is subject to regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. ( 10) DOT may inspect all upstream safety equipment ( including valves, over pressure protection devices, cathodic protection equipment, and pigging devices, etc.) that serve to protect the integrity of DOT regulated pipeline segments. ( 11) OCS pipeline segments not subject to DOT regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195 are subject to all MMS regulations. ( 12) A producer may request that its pipeline operate under DOT regulations governing pipeline design, construction, operation, and maintenance. ( i) The operator's request must be in the form of a written petition to the MMS Regional Supervisor that states the justification for the pipeline to operate under DOT regulation. ( ii) The Regional Supervisor will decide, on a case by case basis, whether to grant the operator's request. In considering each petition, the Regional Supervisor will consult with the Office of Pipeline Safety ( OPS) Regional Director. ( 13) A transporter who operates a pipeline regulated by DOT may request to operate under MMS regulations governing pipeline operation and maintenance. Any subsequent repairs or modifications will also be subject to MMS regulations governing design and construction. ( i) The operator's request must be in the form of a written petition to the OPS Regional Director and the MMS Regional Supervisor. ( ii) The MMS Regional Supervisor and the OPS Regional Director will decide how to act on this petition. * * * * * 3. In § 250.1001, the definition for the term `` DOI pipelines'' is revised and the definitions for the terms `` DOT pipelines,'' and `` production facility'' are added in alphabetical order as follows:

§ 250.1001 Definitions.

* * * * * DOI pipelines include: ( 1) Producer operated pipelines extending upstream ( generally seaward) from each point on the OCS at which operating responsibility transfers from a producing operator to a transporting operator; ( 2) Producer operated pipelines extending upstream ( generally seaward) of the last valve ( including associated safety equipment) on the last production facility on the OCS that do not connect to a transporter operated pipeline on the OCS before crossing into State waters; ( 3) Producer operated pipelines connecting production facilities on the OCS; ( 4) Transporter operated pipelines that DOI and DOT have agreed are to be regulated as DOI pipelines; and ( 5) All OCS pipelines not subject to regulation under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. DOT pipelines include: ( 1) Transporter operated pipelines currently operated under DOT requirements governing design, construction, maintenance, and operation; ( 2) Producer operated pipelines that DOI and DOT have agreed are to be regulated under DOT requirements governing design, construction, maintenance, and operation; and ( 3) Producer operated pipelines downstream ( generally shoreward) of the last valve ( including associated safety equipment) on the last production facility on the OCS that do not connect to a transporter operated pipeline on the OCS before crossing into State waters and that are regulated under 49 CFR parts 192 and 195. * * * * * Production facilities means OCS facilities that receive hydrocarbon production either directly from wells or from other facilities that produce hydrocarbons from wells. They may include processing equipment for treating the production or separating it into its various liquid and gaseous components before transporting it to shore. * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 00   18802 Filed 7   26   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310   MR   U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [ FRL   6841   3]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), as amended, requires that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (`` NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List (`` NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (`` EPA'' or `` the Agency'') in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action( s), if any, may be appropriate. This rule adds 12 new sites to the NPL; 11 sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL and one site to the Federal Facilities Section. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall be August 28, 2000. ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as well as further details on what these dockets contain, see Section II, `` Availability of Information to the Public'' in the `` Supplementary Information'' portion of this preamble. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone ( 703) 603   8835, State, Tribal and Site Identification Center; Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ( mail code 5204G); U. S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone ( 800) 424   9346 or ( 703) 412   9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List ( NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 01 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 27JYR1 46097 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations F. How are Site Boundaries Defined? G. How are Sites Removed from the NPL? H. Can Portions of Sites be Deleted from the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? I. What is the Construction Completion List ( CCL)? II. Availability of Information to the Public A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to this Final Rule? B. What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket? C. What Documents are Available for Review at the Regional Docket? D. How Do I Access the Documents? E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites? III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL B. Status of NPL C. What did EPA Do with the Public Comments It Received? IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What is Executive Order 12866? B. Is this Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review? V. Unfunded Mandates A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA)? B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? VI. Effects on Small Businesses A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to this Final Rule? VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting Office? B. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change? C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change? VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act? B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to this Final Rule? IX. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Final Rule? X. Executive Order 13045 A. What is Executive Order 13045? B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule? XI. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act? B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? XII. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are The Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Final Rule? XIII. Executive Order 13084 What is Executive Order 13084 and is it Applicable to this Final Rule?

I. Background A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U. S. C. 9601   9675 (`` CERCLA'' or `` the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (`` SARA''), Public Law 99   499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (`` NCP''), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 ( 47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 ( 46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 ( 55 FR 8666). As required under section 105( a)( 8)( A) of CERCLA, the NCP also includes `` criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking removal action.'' (`` Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise address releases and threatened releases 42 U. S. C. 9601( 23).)

C. What Is the National Priorities List ( NPL)?

The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix B of the NCP ( 40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105( a)( 8)( B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105( a)( 8)( B) defines the NPL as a list of `` releases'' and the highest priority `` facilities'' and requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. The NPL is only of limited significance, however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken. For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA ( the `` General Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by other Federal agencies ( the `` Federal Facilities Section''). With respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive Order 12580 ( 52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial action ( see 40 CFR 300.425( c) of the NCP): ( 1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (`` HRS''), which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP ( 40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On December 14, 1990 ( 55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to CERCLA section 105( c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; ( 2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 2) requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the State ( see 42 U. S. C. 9605( a)( 8)( B)); ( 3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( c)( 3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met: · The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) of the U. S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory that recommends VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46098 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations dissociation of individuals from the release. · EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health. · EPA anticipates that it will be more cost effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the release. EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 ( 48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on May 11, 2000 ( 65 FR 30482).

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund established under CERCLA ( commonly referred to as the `` Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 1). (`` Remedial actions'' are those `` consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions * * *.'' 42 U. S. C. 9601( 24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425( b)( 2) placing a site on the NPL `` does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined? The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL ( to identify releases that are priorities for further evaluation), for it to do so. Although a CERCLA `` facility'' is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has `` come to be located'' ( CERCLA section 101( 9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data ( if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release( s) at issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis. When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the relevant release( s) is to delineate a geographical area ( usually the area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the `` boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as well as any other location to which that contamination has come to be located, or from which that contamination came. In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate the site ( e. g., the `` Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that property ( e. g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the property ( e. g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the `` site''). The `` site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the name `` Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site. EPA regulations provide that the `` nature and extent of the problem presented by the release'' will be determined by a remedial investigation/ feasibility study ( RI/ FS) as more information is developed on site contamination ( 40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/ FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was originally thought, as more is learned about the source( s) and the migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full extent of where the contamination `` has come to be located'' before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty. Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party. For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research reveals more information about the location of the contamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425( e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the following criteria have been met: ( i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; ( ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been implemented and no further response action is required; or ( iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is not appropriate. As of July 10, 2000, the Agency has deleted 213 sites from the NPL.

H. Can Portions of Sites be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of NPL sites where cleanup is complete ( 60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of July 10, 2000, EPA has deleted portions of 19 sites.

I. What Is the Construction Completion List ( CCL)? EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list (`` CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities ( 58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance. Sites qualify for the CCL when: ( 1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved; ( 2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve construction ( e. g., institutional controls); or ( 3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. Of the 213 sites that have been deleted from the NPL, 203 sites were deleted because they have been cleaned up ( the other 10 sites were deleted based on deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up). As of July 10, 2000, there are a total of 689 sites on the CCL. This total includes the VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46099 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 213 deleted sites. For the most up todate information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund.

II. Availability of Information to the Public A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule? Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA Headquarters and in the Regional offices.

B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket? The Headquarters docket for this rule contains, for each site, the HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. The Headquarters docket also contains comments received, and the Agency's responses to those comments. The Agency's responses are contained in the `` Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule   July 2000.''

C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets? The Regional dockets contain all the information in the Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference documents are available only in the Regional dockets.

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the publication of this document. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are from 9 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours. Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U. S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway # 1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA, 703/ 603   8917. The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows: Barbara Callahan, Region 1 ( CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114   2023; 617/ 918   1356 Ben Conetta, Region 2 ( NJ, NY, PR, VI), U. S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007   1866; 212/ 637   4435 Dawn Shellenberger ( GCI), Region 3 ( DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U. S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/ 814   5364 Joellen O'Neill, Region 4 ( AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U. S. EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/ 562   8127 Region 5 ( IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U. S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management Division 7   J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/ 886   7570 Brenda Cook, Region 6 ( AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U. S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mailcode 6SF   RA, Dallas, TX 75202   2733; 214/ 665   7436 Carole Long, Region 7 ( IA, KS, MO, NE), U. S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/ 551   7224 David Williams, Region 8 ( CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U. S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR   SA, Denver, CO 80202   2466; 303/ 312   6757 Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 ( AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U. S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/ 744   2343 Robert Phillips, Region 10 ( AK, ID, OR, WA), U. S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL   115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/ 553   6699 E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?

You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ superfund/ ( look under site information category) or by contacting the Superfund Docket ( see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Addition to the NPL This final rule adds 12 sites to the NPL; 11 sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL and one site to the Federal Facilities Section. Table 1 presents the 11 sites in the General Superfund Section and Table 2 presents the site in the Federal Facilities Section. Sites in the table are arranged alphabetically by State.

TABLE 1.   NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/ county CT .................. Scovill Industrial Landfill .......................................................................................................................... Waterbury. FL .................. Southern Solvents, Inc. ........................................................................................................................... Tampa. LA .................. Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant .............................................................................................................. Grand Cheniere. MO ................. Newton County Wells .............................................................................................................................. Newton County. MS ................. Davis Timber Company .......................................................................................................................... Hattiesburg. OK ................. Imperial Refining Company ..................................................................................................................... Ardmore. TX .................. Palmer Barge Line .................................................................................................................................. Port Arthur. TX .................. Star Lake Canal ...................................................................................................................................... Port Neches. UT .................. International Smelting and Refining ........................................................................................................ Tooele. WA ................. Hamilton/ Labree Roads Ground Water Contamination .......................................................................... Chehalis. WV ................. Big John Salvage   Hoult Road .............................................................................................................. Fairmont.

Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 11.

TABLE 2.   NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL RULE, FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION State Site name City/ county VA .................. St. Juliens Creek Annex ( U. S. Navy) ..................................................................................................... Chesapeake.

Number of Sites Added to the Federal Facilities Section: 1.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4706 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46100 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations B. Status of NPL With the 12 new sites added to the NPL in today's final rule; the NPL now contains 1,238 final sites; 1,078 in the General Superfund Section and 160 in the Federal Facilities Section. With a separate rule ( published elsewhere in today's Federal Register) proposing to add 7 new sites to the NPL, there are now 57 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 51 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,295. ( These numbers reflect the status of sites as of July 10, 2000. Site deletions occurring after this date may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal Register.)

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule. The Newton County Wells site was proposed on January 19, 1999 ( 64 FR 2950). The International Smelting and Refining site was proposed on April 23, 1999 ( 64 FR 19968). The Star Lake Canal site was proposed on July 22, 1999 ( 64 FR 39886). The Big John Salvage site and the St. Juliens Creek Annex site were both proposed on February 4, 2000 ( 65 FR 5468). The following sites were proposed on May 11, 2000 ( 65 FR 30489): Scovill Industrial Landfill, Southern Solvents, Inc., Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant ( proposed under the name Talen's Landing Bulk Plant), Davis Timber Company, Imperial Refining Company, Palmer Barge Line, and Hamilton/ Labree Roads Ground Water Contamination. For the Scovill Industrial Landfill and Imperial Refining Company sites, EPA received only comments in favor of placing the sites on the NPL. EPA received no comments on the actual scoring of these sites and the Agency has identified no other reason to change the original HRS scores for the sites. Therefore, EPA is placing both sites on the NPL at this time. For, Southern Solvents, Inc., Davis Timber Company, and Hamilton/ Labree Roads Ground Water Contamination, EPA received no comments affecting the HRS scoring of these sites and therefore, EPA is placing them on the final NPL at this time. EPA received one comment on the Palmer Barge Line site in Port Arthur, Texas. The commenter stated that his family business occupies the North Eastern 10 acres at the Palmer Barge Line location. The commenter stated that he hoped that EPA would not interrupt his company's work. In response, CERCLA Section 105( a)( 8)( A) specifies the criteria for listing sites but does not require that the Agency consider possible adverse economic impacts as a factor; accordingly the listing process does not use that as a factor in identifying sites for the NPL. Furthermore, including a site on the NPL does not cause EPA necessarily to undertake remedial action. Any Agency actions that may result in response actions are based on discretionary decisions and are made on a case bycase basis. Remedial response actions are associated with events that generally follow listing a site, not with the listing itself. EPA has not made a decision on what, if any, action may be needed at the Palmer Barge Line site, but if remediation is necessary, the Agency will seek to minimize any disruption of local businesses to the extent possible. Since this comment does not affect the HRS score of this site, EPA is placing it on the final NPL at this time. EPA received one comment on the Talen's Landing Bulk Plant site in Grand Cheniere, Louisiana. The commenter asked that EPA change the name of the Talen's Landing Bulk Plant site. In response, to more accurately identify the site, EPA is changing the name of the site to `` Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant''. The commenter requested a public statement concerning his client's interest or involvement with the site. EPA is unable to comply with this request. This comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking and does not affect the HRS site score. The NPL serves primarily as an informational list. Placing a site on the NPL reflects EPA's judgment that a significant release or threat of release of a hazardous substance has occurred, and that the site is a priority for further investigation under CERCLA. Placing a site on the NPL is not a determination of liability, nor does listing cause EPA necessarily to undertake remedial action, or to require any action by a private party, or to assign liability for site response costs to a private party. Any Agency actions that may result in response actions are based on discretionary decisions and are made on a case by case basis. Remedial response actions are associated with events that generally follow listing a site, not with the listing itself. Since this comment does not affect the HRS score of this site, EPA is placing it on the final NPL at this time under the site name Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant. EPA responded to all relevant comments received on the other sites. EPA's responses to site specific public comments are addressed in the `` Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule   July 2000''. IV. Executive Order 12866 A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

B. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA)?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 01 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 27JYR1 46101 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?

No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing require any action by a private party or determine liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL. For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $ 100 million. EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act ( SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to this Final Rule?

No. While this rule revises the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As stated above, adding sites to the NPL does not in itself require any action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups are affected as a whole. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of adverse impacts on responsible parties ( in the form of cleanup costs), but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also be affected. The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this rule on the NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement and cost recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site by site basis. EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but also its ability to pay. The impacts ( from cost recovery) on small governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a similar case by case basis. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis. VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting Office? The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A `` major rule'' cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

B. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change? Provisions of the Congressional Review Act ( CRA) or section 305 of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation. Under the CRA, 5 U. S. C. 801( a), before a rule can take effect the federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the rule ( including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost benefit analysis of the rule ( if any), the agency's actions relevant to provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( affecting small businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( describing unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments and the private sector), and any other relevant information or requirements and any relevant Executive Orders. EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 804( 2) defines a major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ( OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: an annual effect on the economy of $ 100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46102 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from site by site decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Section 801( a)( 3) provides for a delay in the effective date of major rules after this report is submitted.

C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change?

Under 5 U. S. C. 801( b)( 1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue in effect, if Congress enacts ( and the President signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, described under section 802. Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 ( 1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. EPA, 86 F. 3d 1214, 1222 ( D. C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives. If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?

Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to This Final Rule? No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

IX. Executive Order 12898 A. What is Executive Order 12898? Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to this Final Rule? No. While this rule revises the NPL, no action will result from this rule that will have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on any segment of the population.

X. Executive Order 13045 A. What Is Executive Order 13045? Executive Order 13045: `` Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: ( 1) Is determined to be `` economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule? This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present a disproportionate risk to children.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? According to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070   0012 ( EPA ICR No. 574).

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule? No. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require approval of the OMB.

XII. Executive Orders on Federalism What Are The Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to This Final Rule? Executive Order 13132, entitled `` Federalism'' ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure `` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' `` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46103 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13084 What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to this Final Rule? Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments `` to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' This rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments because it does not significantly or uniquely affect their communities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3( b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, Oil pollution, penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: July 20, 2000. Timothy Fields, Jr., Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

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.

2. Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix B to Part 300 are amended by adding the following sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300   National Priorities List TABLE 1.   GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION State Site name City/ county Notes( a)

* * * * * * * CT ................. Scovill Industrial Landfill ....................................................................................................... Waterbury * * * * * * * FL ................. Southern Solvents, Inc .......................................................................................................... Tampa * * * * * * * LA ................. Mallard Bay Landing Bulk Plant ........................................................................................... Grand Cheniere * * * * * * * MO ................ Newton County Wells ........................................................................................................... Newton County * * * * * * * MS ................ Davis Timber Company ........................................................................................................ Hattiesburg * * * * * * * OK ................ Imperial Refining Company .................................................................................................. Ardmore * * * * * * * TX ................. Palmer Barge Line ................................................................................................................ Port Arthur * * * * * * * TX ................. Star Lake Canal .................................................................................................................... Port Neches * * * * * * * UT ................. International Smelting and Refining ...................................................................................... Tooele * * * * * * * WA ................ Hamilton/ Labree Roads Ground Water Contamination ........................................................ Chehalis * * * * * * * WV ................ Big John Salvage   Hoult Road ............................................................................................ Fairmont VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 10: 41 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm09 PsN: 27JYR1 46104 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 145 / Thursday, July 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations TABLE 1.   GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION   Continued State Site name City/ county Notes( a)

* * * * * * *

( a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry ( if scored, HRS score need not be £ 28.50). C = Sites on construction completion list. S = State top priority ( included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score). P = Sites with partial deletion( s).

TABLE 2.   FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION State Site name City/ county Notes( a)

* * * * * * * VA ................. St. Juliens Creek Annex ( U. S. Navy) ................................................................................... Chesapeake * * * * * * *

( a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry ( if scored, HRS score need not be £ 28.50). C = Sites on construction completion list. S = State top priority ( included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score). P = Sites with partial deletion( s).

[ FR Doc. 00   18902 Filed 7   26   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 430 [ FRL   6842   2]

Project XL Site Specific Rule for the International Paper Androscoggin Mill Facility in Jay, Maine; Project XL Final Project Agreement to be Signed for Effluent Improvement Project at International Paper Androscoggin Mill Facility in Jay, Maine AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule; notice regarding signing of final project agreement.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) today is finalizing this rule to provide site specific regulatory flexibility under the Clean Water Act ( CWA) as part of an XL Project with International Paper's Androscoggin Mill pulp and paper manufacturing facility in Jay, Maine. The site specific rule will exempt International Paper Androscoggin Mill from certain Best Management Practices ( BMPs) required under CWA regulations. In exchange for this regulatory flexibility, International Paper Androscoggin Mill will implement a series of projects designed to improve the mill's effluent quality and will accept numeric permit limits corresponding to the expected improvements in effluent quality. The terms of the International Paper XL project are contained in the Final Project Agreement ( FPA), which project participants are expected to sign on June 29, 2000. EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on July 27, 2000. ADDRESSES: A docket containing the final rule, Final Project Agreement, and supporting materials is available for public inspection and copying at the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M. St., SW., Washington, DC, Room 1027. Members of the public are encouraged to telephone in advance at 202   260   3344 to schedule an appointment. A duplicate copy of project materials is available for inspection and copying at EPA Regional Library, U. S. EPA, Region I, Suite 1100 ( LIB), One Congress Street, Boston MA, 02114   2023, as well as the Town Hall, 99 Main Street, Jay, ME 04239 during normal business hours. Persons wishing to view the materials at the Boston location are encouraged to contact Mr. Chris Rascher in advance. Persons wishing to view the materials at the Jay, Maine, location are encouraged to contact Ms. Shiloh Ring at ( 207) 897   6785 in advance. Project materials on today's action are also available on the worldwide web at http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl/. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Persons seeking information on the project should contact Mr. Chris Rascher in U. S. EPA/ Region 1   New England or Ms. Nina Bonnelycke in U. S. EPA Headquarters. Mr. Rascher can be reached at U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, One Congress St., Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114, or at rascher. chris@ epa. gov. Ms. Bonnelycke can be reached at U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, or at bonnelycke. nina@ epa. gov. Further information on today's action is also available on the worldwide web at http:// www. epa. gov/ projectxl. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Category Examples of potentially affected parties Industry ........ International Paper, Androscoggin Mill, Jay, Maine Outline of Today's Document This preamble presents the following information:

I. Authority II. Overview of Project XL III. Overview of the International Paper Effluent Improvements XL Project A. To Which Facilities Will the Final Rule Apply? B. From What Required Activities Will Today's Final Rule Provide an Exemption? C. What Will the IP Androscoggin Mill Do Differently Under The XL Project? D. What Regulatory Changes Will Be Necessary to Implement this Project? E. Why is EPA Supporting This Approach of Granting a Waiver from BMPs? F. How Have Stakeholders Been Involved in this Project? G. How Will this Project Result in Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction? H. What Are The Enforceable Provisions Of The Project? I. How Long Will this Project Last and When Will It Be Completed? IV. Additional Information VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 16: 01 Jul 26, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 27JYR1. SGM pfrm01 PsN: 27JYR1


[Federal Register: August 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 148)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38524-38529]
[DOCID:fr04au09-8]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 100, 147 and 165

[USCG-2009-0677]

District Eight Safety Zones and Special Local Regulations

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of expired temporary rules issued.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document provides required notice of substantive rules
issued by the Coast Guard and temporarily effective between May 2006
and January 2009, that expired before they could be published in the
Federal Register. This notice lists safety zones and special local
regulations issued in the Eighth Coast Guard District, all of very
limited duration and for which timely publication in the Federal
Register was not possible.

DATES: This document lists temporary Coast Guard rules that became
effective and were terminated between May 15, 2006 and January 9, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents listed in this preamble under the USCG-
200- format are available
for electronic viewing under their individual docket numbers at http://
www.regulations.gov. All other document formats are available for
viewing online under Notice USCG-2009-0677 at http://
www.regulations.gov. These documents are also available for inspection
or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this notice contact
Yeoman First Class Denise Johnson, Office of Regulations and
Administrative Law, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For questions on viewing,
or on submitting material to the docket, contact Ms. Angie Ames, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Coast Guard District Commanders and Captains
of the Port (COTP) must be immediately responsive to the safety and
security needs within their jurisdiction; therefore, District
Commanders and COTPs have been delegated the authority to issue certain
local regulations. Safety zones may be established for safety or
environmental purposes. A safety zone may be stationary and described
by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a vessel in
motion. Special local regulations are issued to enhance the safety of
participants and spectators at regattas and other marine events. Timely
publication of these rules in the Federal Register is often precluded
when a rule responds to an emergency, or when an event occurs without
sufficient advance notice. The affected public is, however, informed of
these rules through Local Notices to Mariners, press releases, and
other means. Moreover, actual notification is provided by Coast Guard
patrol vessels enforcing the restrictions imposed by the rule. Because
Federal Register publication was not possible before the beginning of
the effective period, mariners were personally notified of the contents
of these safety zones by Coast Guard officials' on-scene prior to any
enforcement action. However, the Coast Guard, by law, must publish in
the Federal Register notice of substantive rules adopted. To meet this
obligation without imposing undue expense on the public, the Coast
Guard is publishing a list of expired temporary regulations pertaining
to the Eighth Coast Guard District, which is headquartered in New
Orleans, Louisiana. Permanent rules are not included in this list
because they are published in their entirety in the Federal Register.
Temporary rules are also published in their entirety if

sufficient time is available to do so before they are placed in effect
or terminated. The temporary rules listed in this notice have been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, because of their emergency nature, or limited scope and
temporary effectiveness.
    The following rules were placed in effect temporarily during the
period between May 2006 and January 2009, unless otherwise indicated.

    Dated: July 28,2009.
S.G. Venckus,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU09.110

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU09.111

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU09.112

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR04AU09.113

[FR Doc. E9-18510 Filed 8-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-C


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 52081]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21328]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 7686-004]

Big Wood Canal Company; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, Protests,
Recommendations, and Terms and Conditions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of Conduit Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 7686-004.
    c. Date Filed: August 22, 2019.
    d. Applicant: Big Wood Canal Company.
    e. Name of Project: Jim Knight Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the South Gooding Main Canal
in Gooding County, near Gooding, Idaho.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Nicholas E. Josten, GeoSense LLC, 2742
Saint Charles Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83404,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Linda Stewart,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing responsive documents: Due to the small size
of the proposed project, as well as the resource agency consultation
letters filed with the application, the 60-day timeframe specified in
18 CFR 4.34(b) for filing all comments, motions to intervene, protests,
recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is shortened
to 30 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments
must be filed with the Commission within 45 days from the issuance date
of this notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-7686-004.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person on the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, it must also serve a
copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: Big Wood Canal Company (exemptee)
proposes to construct a new powerhouse and remove the existing
powerhouse. Specifically, the exemptee proposes to construct a new
intake structure and a new powerhouse containing a single 475-kilowatt
(kW) turbine generating unit. These project features would be located
immediately downstream of the existing powerhouse. The exemptee also
proposes to remove the existing intake structure and the existing
powerhouse, which contains three turbine generating units with a total
installed capacity of 289 kW.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number, P-7686, in the docket number
field to access the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of
new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects.
For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
deadline date for the particular application.
    n. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'',
``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,'' ``RECOMMENDATIONS,''
``TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the
heading, the name of the applicant and the project number of the
application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name,
address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening;
and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001
through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). A copy of all other filings in
reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service
on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the Commission in
this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.

    Dated: September 25, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21328 Filed 9-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 41180]
[DOCID:fr14au09-86]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on June 5, 2009, 74 FR 27058-27059. Wildlife
strike data are collected to develop standards and monitor hazards to
aviation. Data identify wildlife strike control requirements and
provide in-service data on aircraft component failure.

DATES: Please submit comments by September 14, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at Carla.Mauneyfaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0045.
    Forms(s): Form 5200-7.
    Affected Public: An estimated 7,666 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 5 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 613 hours annually.
    Abstract: Wildlife strike data are collected to develop standards
and monitor hazards to aviation. Data identify wildlife strike control
requirements and provide in-service data on aircraft component failure.
The FAA form 5200-7, Bird/Other Wildlife Strike Report, is most often
completed by the pilot in charge of an aircraft involved in a wildlife
collision or by Air Traffic Control Tower personnel, or other airline
or airport personnel who have knowledge of the incident.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 7, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E9-19424 Filed 8-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M