26830 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices

established in 40 CFR Part 68, EPA ICR

No. 1956.01. This is a new collection.

Abstract: On June 20, 1996, EPA

published risk management regulations

mandated under the accidental release

prevention provisions under the Clean

Air Act Section 112(r)(7), 42 U.S.C.

7412(r)(7). These regulations were

codified in 40 CFR Part 68. The intent

of Section 112(r) is to prevent accidental

releases to the air and mitigate the

consequences of such releases by

focusing prevention measures on

chemicals that pose the greatest risk to

the environment. The chemical accident

prevention rule required owners and

operators of stationary sources subject to

the rule to submit a risk management

plan by June 21, 1999 to EPA. The

Office of Chemical Emergency

Preparedness and Prevention (OCEPP),

Superfund Division, Region 5, is

responsible for implementing and

enforcing the Risk Management

Program. In order to fulfill its responsibilities as the implementing office,

OCEPP will collect information from

major stationary sources of air emissions

to determine whether or not these

sources are in compliance with the risk

management program regulations. The

information will be requested through

certified mail and pursuant to Section

114(a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.

7414(a). Therefore, response to the

information collection is mandatory.

Any information submitted to EPA for

which a claim of confidentiality is made

will be safeguarded according to the

Agency policies set forth in Title 40,

Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B—

Confidentiality of Business Information

(see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September

1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000,

September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251,

September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674,

March 23, 1979). An agency may not

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not

required to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid OMB control number.

The OMB control numbers for EPA’s

regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9

and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The information

collected will include the names of the

regulated substances used, produced, or

stored on-site; amount of the regulated

substances; copies of inventory records;

copies of Material Safety Data Sheets;

capacity of the container which stores or

handles the regulated substance; and the

number of employees.

The EPA would like to solicit

comments to:

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the functions of the

agency, including whether the information

will have practical utility;

(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s

estimate of the burden of the proposed

collection of information, including the

validity of the methodology and assumptions

used;

(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity

of the information to be collected; and

(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection

of information on those who are to respond,

including through the use of appropriate

automated electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or other

forms of information technology, e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of

responses.

Burden Statement: EPA estimates that

a total of 2,000 respondents will receive

the request for information. The total

burden for the respondents for this

collection of information is estimated to

be 3,000 hours with an average of 1.5

hours per response and a labor cost of

$49. The responses will be one-time,

and do not involve periodic reporting or

recordkeeping. No capital or start-up

expenses will be required Burden means

the total time, effort, or financial

resources expended by persons to

generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or

provide information to or for a Federal

agency. This includes the time needed

to review instructions; develop, acquire,

install, and utilize technology and

systems for the purposes of collecting,

validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining

information, and disclosing and

providing information; adjust the

existing ways to comply with any

previously applicable instructions and

requirements; train personnel to be able

to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

William Muno,

Director, Superfund Division.

[FR Doc. 00–11568 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6603–6]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit

Program; Petition for Objection to

Proposed State Operating Permit for

Exxon Chemical Americas’ (Exxon)

Polypropylene Unit Baton Rouge

Polyolefins Plant Baton Rouge, East

Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition

to object to State operating permit.

SUMMARY: This notice announces that

the EPA Administrator has denied a

petition to object to a proposed state

operating permit issued by the

Louisiana Department of Environmental

Quality for Exxon’s Chemical Americas

proposed polypropylene unit at its

Polyolefins Plant in Baton Rouge,

Louisiana. Pursuant to section 505(b)(2)

of the Clean Air Act (Act), the

petitioners may seek judicial review in

the United States Court of Appeals for

the appropriate circuit within 60 days of

this decision under section 307 of the

Act.

ADDRESSES: You may review copies of

the final order, the petition, and other

supporting information at EPA, Region

6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas

75202–2733. If you wish to examine

these documents, you should make an

appointment at least 24 hours before

visiting day. The final order is also

available electronically at the following

address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/

t5pfpr.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jole

Luehrs, Chief, Air Permitting Section,

Multimedia Planning and Permitting

Division, EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7250, or e-mail at

luehrs.jole@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Act

affords EPA a 45-day period to review,

and object to as appropriate, operating

permits proposed by State permitting

authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act

authorizes any person to petition the

EPA Administrator within 60 days after

the expiration of this review period to

object to State operating permits if EPA

has not done so. Petitions must be based

only on objections to the permit that

were raised with reasonable specificity

during the public comment period

provided by the State, unless the

petitioner demonstrates that it was

impracticable to raise these issues

during the comment period or the

grounds for the issues arose after this

period.

Ms. Marylee Orr, Executive Director

of the Louisiana Environmental Action

Network (LEAN) submitted a petition to

the Administrator on December 30,

1998, seeking EPA’s objection to the

title V operating permit issued for

Exxon’s proposed polypropylene unit at

Exxon’s polyolefins plant in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana. The petition was

submitted on behalf of the North Baton

Rouge Environmental Association and

LEAN (Petitioners). The petition objects

to issuance of the Exxon permit on two

grounds: (1) Alleged discrimination

under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;

and (2) the Baton Rouge ozone

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Notices 26831

nonattainment area is not making

reasonable further progress towards

attainment, and that the additional

emissions from the proposed

polypropylene unit will adversely affect

the ozone situation. Ms. Orr also

submitted a letter supplementing the

petition on behalf of LEAN on January

5, 1999, and another letter on March 1,

1999, requesting that the Exxon permit

be reopened. The Region 6 Regional

Administrator also addressed the

second issue in a separate letter to the

Petitioners.

On April 12, 2000, the Administrator

issued an order denying the petition.

The order explains the reasons for

denying the Petitioners’ claims.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Carl E. Edlund,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 00–11567 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6602–7]

Notice of Proposed Administrative

Settlement Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), Union Pacific

Railroad Wallace-Mullan Branch

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with section

122(i) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act, as

amended (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C.

9622(i), notice is hereby given of a

proposed administrative settlement with

the Union Pacific Railroad Company for

recovery of certain response costs

concerning the Union Pacific Railroad

Wallace-Mullan Branch in northern

Idaho. The settlement requires Union

Pacific to pay a total of $650,000 to the

Hazardous Substance Superfund. The

settlement includes a limited covenant

not to sue pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)

and provides for contribution protection

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 9622(h). This

administrative settlement will be

superseded upon entry of a consent

decree lodged on December 23, 1999, by

the United States, State of Idaho, Coeur

d’Alene, and Union Pacific, Case No.

99–606–N–EJL (D. Idaho), or will

otherwise terminate three months from

the effective date of the administrative

settlement, unless otherwise agreed by

the parties to this settlement. EPA will

consider public comments on the

proposed administrative settlement for

thirty days. EPA may withdraw from or

modify this proposed settlement should

such comments disclose facts or

considerations which indicate this

proposed settlement is inappropriate,

improper, or inadequate.

DATES: Written comments must be

provided on or before June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Clifford J. Villa, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200

Sixth Ave., ORC–158, Seattle,

Washington 98101 and refer to In the

Matter of Union Pacific Railroad

Wallace-Mullan Branch Notice of

Proposed Administrative Settlement.

Copies of the proposed settlement are

available from: Clifford J. Villa, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, Office of Regional Counsel,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101, (206) 553–1185.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Clifford J. Villa at (206) 553–1185.

Authority: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act of 1980, as amended

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i).

Sheila M. Eckman,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 00–11570 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6604–1]

Public Water System Supervision

Program Revision for the State of

South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The State of South Dakota has

revised its Public Water System

Supervision (PWSS) Primacy Program.

South Dakota’s PWSS program,

administered by the Drinking Water

Program of the South Dakota

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources (DENR), has adopted

regulations for lead and copper in

drinking water that correspond to the

National Primary Drinking Water

Regulations (NPDWR) in 40 CFR part

141 Subpart I (56 FR 26460–26564). The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

published a proposed primacy revision

on August 16, 1999 at 64 FR 44521 and

provided for public comment. The EPA

also held a public hearing on December

2, 1999, in Badlands National Park,

South Dakota (64 FR 61109). No

comments were received regarding

PWSS program issues. The EPA has

completed its review of South Dakota’s

primacy revisions and has determined

that they are no less stringent than the

NPDWR. EPA therefore approves South

Dakota’s primacy revisions for the Lead

and Copper Rule.

Today’s approval action does not

extend to public water systems in

Indian Country as that term is defined

in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Please see

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Item B.

DATES: This primacy revision approval

will be effective June 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda Himmelbauer, Municipal Systems

Unit, EPA Region 8 (8P–W–MS), 999

18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, Colorado

80202–2466, telephone 303–312–6263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received primacy

from EPA under the SDWA must

maintain a safe drinking water program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

program and ask EPA to approve the

revisions to their programs. Changes to

State programs may be necessary when

Federal or State statutory or regulatory

authority is modified or when certain

other changes occur.

B. How Does Today’s Action Affect

Indian Country (18 U.S.C. Section 1151)

in South Dakota?

South Dakota is not authorized to

carry out its Public Water System

Supervision program in Indian country,

as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This

includes, but is not limited to: Lands

within the exterior boundaries of the

following Indian Reservations located

within the State of South Dakota:

a. Cheyenne River Indian Reservation.

b. Crow Creek Indian Reservation.

c. Flandreau Indian Reservation.

d. Lower Brule Indian Reservation.

e. Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

f. Rosebud Indian Reservation.

g. Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

h. Yankton Indian Reservation.

EPA held a public hearing on

December 2, 1999, in Badlands National

Park, South Dakota, and accepted public

comments on the question of the

location and extent of Indian country

within the State of South Dakota. In a

forthcoming Federal Register notice,

EPA will respond to comments and

more specifically identify Indian

country areas in the State of South

Dakota.