Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 58839

who themselves melt the recovered 

aluminum. 

If we were to construe the definition 

in any other way, this would permit 

other sources to evade the applicability 

of emission controls required by the rule 

by merely moving those operations 

which melt the recovered secondary 

aluminum to another site. This result 

would violate our established 

requirement that sources may not 

fragment an operation in order to avoid 

regulation under an applicable standard. 

See 40 CFR 63.4(b)(3). We decline to 

construe the definitions in subpart RRR 

in a manner which would allow 

secondary aluminum production 

facilities to fragment their operations to 

evade emission control requirements. 

Based on this analysis, we conclude 

that the delamination chambers 

operated by the U.S. Granules Plymouth 

and Henrietta facilities, and any similar 

secondary aluminum operations which 

may be conducted now or in the future 

at other sources, are governed by 

subpart RRR. Although this 

interpretative rule will take effect on 

November 1, 2004, we note that subpart 

RRR itself is already in effect. That is 

why the letters that we sent to U.S. 

Granules vacating the two previous 

conflicting applicability determinations 

stated that, if we were to adopt a 

construction of subpart RRR resulting in 

a new positive applicability 

determination for the affected facilities, 

we would afford U.S. Granules a 

reasonable period to undertake any 

activities required to come into 

compliance or to establish continued 

compliance with subpart RRR. 

Consequently, U.S. Granules will be 

required to comply with subpart RRR 

within 240 days of the effective date of 

this Interpretative Rule. 

III. Other Review Requirements 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51736, October 4, 1993), this 

interpretative rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ and is therefore not 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

Section 553(b)(3)(A) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act provides 

that interpretative rules are not subject 

to notice-and-comment requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act. Interpretative rules which do not 

involve the internal revenue laws of the 

United States are not subject to the 

regulatory flexibility provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because notice-and-comment 

requirements do not apply to this 

interpretative rule, this rule is also not 

subject to sections 202 and 205 of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1532 and 1535). 

In addition, this action does not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments or impose a significant 

intergovernmental mandate, as 

described in sections 203 and 204 of 

UMRA. This interpretative rule also 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

the communities of tribal governments, 

as specified by Executive Order 13084 

(63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This 

interpretative rule will not have 

significant 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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). 

This interpretative rule is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant. This action 

does not involve technical standards; 

thus, the requirements of section 12(d) 

of the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This 

interpretative rule also does not involve 

special consideration of environmental 

justice related issues as required by 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994). 

In issuing this interpretative rule, EPA 

has taken the necessary steps to 

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, 

minimize potential litigation, and 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, as required by section 

3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, 

February 7, 1996). The EPA has 

complied with Executive Order 12630 

(53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 

examining the takings implications of 

the interpretative rule in accordance 

with the ‘‘Attorney General’s 

Supplemental Guidelines for the 

Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of 

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under 

the Executive Order. This interpretative 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Our compliance 

with statutes and Executive Orders in 

promulgating the rule which is 

interpreted herein (40 CFR part 63, 

subpart RRR) is discussed in the Federal 

Register notice concerning the original 

promulgated rule (63 FR 15690, March 

23, 2000), and in the Federal Register

notice concerning subsequent 

amendments to that rule (67 FR 79808, 

December 30, 2002). 

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. We have 

established an effective date of 

November 1, 2004. The EPA will submit 

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. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2).

Dated: August 18, 2004. 

Thomas V. Skinner, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

[FR Doc. 04–22084 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7822–7] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of deletion for the 

Dubose Oil Products Superfund Site 

from the National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of 

the Dubose Oil Products Site in 

Cantonment, Florida, from the National 

Priorities List (NPL), which is Appendix 

B of the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP). The EPA requests comments on 

this deletion. The EPA and the State 

have determined that all appropriate 

Fund-financed responses under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA), as amended, have been 

implemented and that no further 

cleanup by responsible parties is 

appropriate. Moreover, the EPA and the 

State have determined that remedial 

actions conducted at the site to date 

have been protective of public health, 

welfare, and the environment. However, 

this deletion does not preclude future 

actions under Superfund.

DATES: Effective October 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Caroline Robinson, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

58840 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

Agency, Region 4, South Site 

Management Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30365, (404) 562–

8930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to 

be deleted from the NPL is: Dubose Oil 

Products Superfund Site, Cantonment, 

Florida. 

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this 

site was published August 4, 2004, 69 

FR 47072. The closing date for 

comments on the notice of Intent to 

Delete was September 3, 2004. The EPA 

received no comments. 

The EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health, welfare, or the environment and 

it maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. Any site deleted from the NPL 

remains eligible for Fund-financed 

remedial actions in the unlikely event 

that conditions at the site warrant such 

action in the future. Section 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that 

Fund-financed actions may be taken at 

sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of 

a site from the NPL does not affect 

responsible party liability or impede 

agency efforts to recover costs 

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

J. I. Palmer, Jr., 

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601–9657; 33 U.S.C. 

1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR 

1991 Comp., p 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended by removing the site Dubose 

Oil Products Superfund Site, 

Cantonment, Florida.

[FR Doc. 04–22083 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[FCC 04–150] 

Schedule of Charges for Application 

Fees; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: This document contains a 

correction to the final rule, which was 

published in the Federal Register of 

Wednesday, July 7, 2004 (69 FR 41130). 

The final rule related to the Amendment 

of the Schedule of Application Fees.

DATES: Effective on October 1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Claudette E. Pride, 202–418–1995; Email: Claudette.Pride@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The final rule that is the subject of 

these corrections amends the Schedule 

of Applications Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 et 

seq., to adjust its fees for processing 

applications and other filings. Section 

8(b) of the Communications Act, as 

amended, requires that the Commission 

review and adjust its application fees 

every two years after October 1, 1991. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the final rule contains 

an error which provides the wrong fee 

amount and payment type code for a 

license to operate a direct broadcast 

satellite in § 1.1107, Schedule of 

Charges for Applications and Other 

Filings for the International Service.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 

Practice and procedure.

■ Accordingly, 47 CFR part 1 is corrected 

by making the following correcting 

amendment:

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 503(b)(5); 5 

U.S.C. 552 and 21 U.S.C. 853a, unless 

otherwise noted.

§ 1.1107 [Amended]

■ 2. In § 1.1107, in column 11.c., the fee 

amount is revised to read: ‘‘$28,920.00’’.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–21086 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 73 

[DA 04–2908, MB Docket No. 03–144, RM–

10733, RM–10788, RM–10789] 

Radio Broadcasting Services; 

Breckenridge, Crawford, Eagle, Fort 

Morgan, Greenwood Village, and 

Gunnison, CO; Laramie, WY; Loveland, 

Olathe and Strasburg, CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document denies a 

petition filed by Dana J. Puopolo 

requesting the allotment of Channel 

299C3 at Gunnison, Colorado. See 68 FR 

42663, published July 18, 2003. This 

document also denies a petition jointly 

filed by Lenora Alexander, former 

licensee of FM Station KAGM, KAGM 

Joint Venture, proposed licensee of 

Station KAGM, and On-Air Family, 

LLC, licensee of Station KBRU–FM 

proposing the reallottment of Channel 

272A from Strasburg to Greenwood 

Village, Colorado, as its first local 

service, among other changes in Fort 

Morgan, Breckenridge, Eagle, and 

Loveland, Colorado and Laramie, 

Wyoming. This document also grants a 

counterproposal filed by MayflowerCrawford Broadcasting requesting the 

allotment of Channel 272C2 at 

Crawford, Colorado, as its first local 

service. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION.

DATES: Effective November 5, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, MB Docket No. 03–144 

adopted September 15, 2004, and 

released September 20, 2004. The full 

text of this Commission decision is 

available for inspection and copying 

during normal business hours in the 

Commission’s Reference Center 445 

Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. The complete text of this 

decision may also be purchased from 

the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20054, telephone 1–

800–378–3160 or http://

www.BCPIWEB.com. The Commission 

will send a copy of the Report and 

Order in this proceeding in a report to