Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Notices 39615

ADDRESSES: All comments on the

proposed FPA should be sent to: Janet

Murray, EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios

Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,

mail code 1802, Washington DC 20460.

Comments may also be faxed to Ms.

Murray at (202) 260–3125. Comments

may also be received via electronic mail

sent to: murray.janet@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To

obtain a copy of the proposed FPA or a

Fact Sheet, contact: Janet Murray, EPA

Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, mail code 1802,

Washington DC 20460. The FPA and

related documents are also available via

the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/

ProjectXL. Questions to EPA regarding

the documents can be directed to Janet

Murray at (202) 260–7570. To be

included on the Progressive Project XL

mailing list for information about future

meetings, or XL Progress Reports,

contact Janet Murray at (202) 260–7570.

Information on other aspects of Project

XL, descriptions of other XL projects

and proposals, and application

information is available via the Internet

at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Project

XL, first announced in the Federal

Register on May 23,1995 (60 FR 27282),

gives regulated entities the flexibility to

develop alternative strategies that will

replace or modify specific regulatory or

procedural requirements on the

condition that they produce greater

environmental benefits. EPA has set a

goal of implementing fifty XL projects in

full partnership with the states.

The Progressive Insurance Company

has piloted a new type of voluntary auto

insurance program in the state of Texas.

Most auto insurance rates are based on

a number of factors, including: age, sex,

marital status, and where the driver

lives, while more specific information

about customer driving patterns such as

mileage driven, time of day and location

of driving, are generally not taken into

account because of the difficulty

involved in monitoring and tracking the

information. In response to this,

Progressive has worked cooperatively

with a technology firm to install in their

customers’ vehicles a global positioning

system device which, in addition to

providing personal security, and

roadside and directional assistance, also

monitors a number of other factors,

including: time of day, amount of

driving, and estimated geographic

location of driving. The company can

then use these additional factors in its

‘‘Autograph’’ Program in determining

auto insurance rates which are more

specific to individuals’ driving habits.

It has been estimated that roughly

80% of an individual’s transportation

costs are fixed once one purchases a car;

that is, 80% of costs remain the same on

a monthly basis regardless of how much

or how little one drives. With the

Progressive system, some of the fixed

costs now become variable costs which

will be influenced by the customer’s

monthly driving activity.

By offering this product, Progressive

is providing its customers a financial

incentive to drive less and choose

alternate forms of transportation, such

as public transit or walking, and in so

doing reduce the negative

environmental impact resulting from

higher levels of automobile usage. In

this XL Project, EPA will initiate a study

to determine the environmental impact

of this insurance product.

While the company has not yet

directly measured environmental

impacts, if consumers respond to the

increased per mile cost of driving

resulting from converting automotive

insurance from a fixed to variable cost

the same way they do to the increased

per mile cost of driving resulting from

fuel price increases, a significant

reduction in driving would be expected.

Initial cost figures appear to show that

drivers are paying close attention to

their driving patterns and the

information supplied to them by the

company, in order to minimize their

insurance costs.

The focus of this XL Project is an

analytical study, which will determine

the extent to which the Progressive

Program has an effect on the

environment. EPA, in partnership with

USDOT and the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety, is developing a study

methodology to determine if indeed the

anecdotal evidence is accurate, and

drivers are driving less as a result of

their participation in the program.

EPA’s interest in the program derives

from the possibility that insurance

pricing plans like Autograph might alter

driving habits, as well as distinguish

existing differences in habits, as drivers

learn how their driving habits affect

their costs. Recognizing that factors

such as total driving and driving during

congested traffic periods, can also affect

air quality, EPA is interested in whether

people who sign up for a voluntary

program like Autograph will reduce

their total driving or their driving

during congested periods.

Reducing vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) is essential to promoting many of

EPA’s environmental objectives. U.S.

travel is responsible for a substantial

portion of U.S. ozone precursor

emissions (31% of volatile organic

compounds and 36% of nitrogen oxides)

61% of nationwide carbon monoxide

emissions, and 31% of carbon dioxide

emissions. Reducing VMT is a

fundamental strategy in addressing the

full range of environmental harms

related to travel.

The company has already piloted the

technology and the insurance product.

Progressive’s commitment to this XL

Project involves making available to

EPA, aggregated data on participants’

driving mileage and times of day that

participants are driving. This will allow

the Agency to analyze Progressive’s data

and make determinations regarding

increases or decreases in driving

mileage in response to the use of this

product.

The public comment period on this

project will be 14 days.

Dated: June 21, 2000.

Elizabeth Shaw,

Deputy Associate Administrator for

Reinvention Programs.

[FR Doc. 00–16180 Filed 6–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6725–6]

Interim Guidance on the CERCLA

Section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted

Release Definition for Certain Air

Emissions; Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is announcing that it will

revise the Interim Guidance on the

CERCLA Section 101(10)(H) Federally

Permitted Release Definition for Certain

Air Emissions. EPA has suspended the

Interim Guidance until revised guidance

is published.

EPA published the Interim Guidance

in the Federal Register on December 21,

1999. EPA stated in the Interim

Guidance that ‘‘EPA will revise the

guidance if, after reviewing the

comments, the Agency believes that the

guidance warrants modification.’’ EPA

provided extensive opportunity for

comment. The Interim Guidance public

comment period was extended twice

and EPA also held a public meeting on

the Interim Guidance on February 24,

2000. EPA received numerous

comments on the Interim Guidance.

Upon review of these comments, EPA

has decided to revise the Interim

Guidance. EPA expects to issue revised

guidance to replace the Interim

Guidance in July 2000.

39616 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Notices

On March 17 and March 20, 2000,

several petitioners filed challenges to

the Interim Guidance in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia, consolidated in National

Association of Manufacturers, et al v.

Browner (Nos. 00–1111 and 00–1121).

On May 19, 2000, EPA and petitioners

jointly moved to vacate the schedule for

briefing and oral argument and to hold

all proceedings in abeyance until

August 25, 2000, or until EPA issues

revisions to the Interim Guidance,

whichever comes first. Because of the

pending revisions to the guidance the

parties agreed that it would be wasteful

and inefficient to brief the merits of the

Interim Guidance. In addition, EPA

suspended the Interim Guidance until

the revisions are issued. This means that

EPA will not rely on or cite the

suspended Interim Guidance in any

actions, including actions to enforce the

reporting requirements under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (CERCLA) or the Emergency

Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA). EPA will continue

to rely on the statute, regulations, and

previous decisions when enforcing

CERCLA and EPCRA.

EPA, in this Federal Register

document, is providing notice to the

regulated community and the interested

public on the status of the Interim

Guidance. Below is the text of the Joint

Motion as filed and signed by the

parties on May 19, 2000, and granted by

the U.S. Court of Appeals on May 24,

2000 (attachment 1). The court also

granted a similar joint motion to vacate

scheduling and hold the case in

abeyance in Alabama Power Co. v.

Browner (Nos. 89–1408 and 89–1765), a

prior, separate case which also raises

issues regarding federally permitted

releases.

On February 15, 2000, EPA issued an

enforcement discretion memo to its

regional offices regarding the

enforcement of certain CERCLA section

103 and EPCRA section 304 violations.

EPA is announcing that the period of

enforcement discretion discussed in that

memo is extended until August 25,

2000. Copies of the memo may be

obtained by calling EPA’s Enforcement

and Compliance Docket and Information

Center at 202–564–2614/2119, or by Email at docket.oeca@epamail.epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information regarding this

notice, please contact Virginia Phillips,

Environmental Protection Agency (Mail

Code 2245A), 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460;

(202) 564–6139.

Dated: June 16, 2000.

Eric Schaeffer,

Director, Office of Regulatory Enforcement.

In the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit

[Case No. 00–1111 and consolidated Case No.

00–1121]

National Association of Manufacturers,

et al., Petitioners, v. United States

Environmental Protection Agency,

Respondent)

Joint Motion To Vacate Schedule for

Briefing and Oral Argument and To

Hold All Proceedings in Abeyance

The respondent, Environmental

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’), and both

sets of Petitioners in these consolidated

cases jointly move to vacate the

schedule for briefing and oral argument

and request the Court to hold all

proceedings in abeyance until August

25, 2000, or until EPA issues revisions

to the guidance document challenged in

this case, whichever comes first, at

which time the parties will submit

motions regarding future proceedings in

the case. The parties seek this relief

because EPA has suspended the interim

guidance document challenged by the

petitioners until it issues revisions to

that document, which it is currently

drafting and which it expects to issue in

July 2000 as a replacement of the

interim guidance document. In further

support of this motion, the parties state

as follows:

(1) On December 21, 1999, EPA issued

its ‘‘Interim Guidance on the CERCLA

Section 101(10)(H) Federally Permitted

Release Definition for Certain Air

Emissions,’’ published at 64 FR 71614

(December 21, 1999) (‘‘Interim

Guidance’’). Although there is

disagreement among the parties

regarding the Interim Guidance and its

effects, in general the Interim Guidance

includes statements by EPA on the

subject of CERCLA’s federally permitted

release exemption in the context of

certain air emissions. Federally

permitted releases are exempt from the

reporting requirements under CERCLA

section 103, 42 U.S.C. 9603(a), and

section 304 of the Emergency

Preparedness and Community Right-toKnow Act (‘‘EPCRA’’), 42 U.S.C.

11004(a). In addition, federally

permitted releases are exempt from

CERCLA liability under CERCLA

section 107(j). 42 U.S.C. 9607(j).

Federally permitted releases are defined

at CERCLA section 101(10). That

provision includes a definition of

federally permitted releases for

emissions into the air pursuant to the

Clean Air Act. CERCLA section

101(10)(H); 42 U.S.C. 9601(10)(H).

(2) In the Interim Guidance, EPA

requested comments on the document’s

contents, declared that it intended to

conduct a public meeting on the Interim

Guidance, and stated that ‘‘EPA will

revise the guidance if, after reviewing

the comments, the Agency believes that

the guidance warrants modification.’’ 64

FR 71614, col. 1.

(3) On March 17 and 20, 2000, the

Petitioners filed their respective

petitions challenging the Interim

Guidance.

(4) On April 18, Petitioners in Case

No. 00–1111 filed ‘‘Petitioners’’ Motion

for Expedited Consideration of Petition

for Review, Accelerated Briefing

Schedule and Stay Pending Review.’’

On April 26, in its opposition to

Petitioners’ motion, EPA cross-moved to

dismiss both petitions. On May 2, 2000,

the Court referred the motion to dismiss

to the merits panel, denied the motion

for stay, and set a briefing schedule,

with Petitioners’ opening brief due on

June 1. The Court has scheduled oral

argument for September 6, 2000.

(5) On February 24, 2000, EPA

conducted a public meeting on the

Interim Guidance. In addition to

comments received at the public

meeting, EPA has received numerous

written comments on the Interim

Guidance. Upon review of these

comments, EPA has decided to revise

the Interim Guidance.

(6) EPA expects to issue revisions to

the Interim Guidance in July, 2000.

These revisions will replace the Interim

Guidance. Accordingly, it would be

wasteful and inefficient to brief the

merits of the Interim Guidance. EPA

therefore agrees to suspend the Interim

Guidance until the issuance of the

revisions. EPA will not rely on or cite

the suspended Interim Guidance in any

actions, including actions to enforce the

reporting requirements under CERCLA

or EPCRA.

(7) Because EPA expects to issue

revisions that will replace the Interim

Guidance during the currently

scheduled briefing period or shortly

after briefing is completed, but before

the scheduled date for oral argument in

this case, the parties request that the

Court hold in abeyance all proceedings

in this case until August 25, 2000, or

until EPA issues revisions to the Interim

Guidance, whichever comes first. At

that time, the parties would submit

motions regarding the future

proceedings in the case. If, as expected,

EPA has issued revisions that replace

the Interim Guidance, those motions

would discuss the disposition of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Notices 39617

petitions filed in this case, which

challenge the current Interim Guidance.

(8) Intervenor has represented that it

agrees to the relief requested by this

motion.

For the reasons set forth above, the

parties request that this Court vacate the

schedule for briefing and oral argument

and request the Court to hold all

proceedings in this case in abeyance

until August 25, 2000 or until EPA

issues revisions to the Interim

Guidance, whichever comes first, at

which time the parties would submit

motions regarding future proceedings in

the case.

Dated: May 19, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

For Respondent EPA:

Lois J. Schiffer,

Assistant Attorney General, Environment and

Natural Resources Division.

Thomas Lorenzen,

G. Scott Williams,

Environmental Defense Section, United States

Department of Justice, P.O. Box 23986,

Washington D.C. 20026–3986, (202) 514–

1950.

Nina Rivera,

Office of General Counsel (2366A),

Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

For Petitioners National Association of

Manufacturers, et al.:

Paul G. Wallach,

James L. Quarles III,

James G. Votaw,

Hale and Dorr LLP, 1455 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004, (202)

942–8429.

For Petitioners Appalachian Power Co., et

al.:

Henry V. Nickel,

F. William Brownell,

Norman W. Fichthorn,

Hunton & Williams, 1900 K Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20006, (202) 955–1673.

[FR Doc. 00–16181 Filed 6–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6725–8]

Notice of Proposed Purchaser

Agreement Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act of 1980, as Amended by the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public

comment.

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980, as amended by the

Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986,

(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675,

notice is hereby given that a proposed

prospective purchaser agreement

(‘‘Purchaser Agreement’’) associated

with the North Penn Area 7 Superfund

Site, Lansdale Borough and Upper

Gwynedd Township, Montgomery

County, Pennsylvania was executed by

the Environmental Protection Agency

and the Department of Justice and is

now subject to public comment, after

which the United States may modify or

withdraw its consent if comments

received disclose facts or considerations

which indicate that the Purchaser

Agreement is inappropriate, improper,

or inadequate. The Purchaser

Agreement would resolve certain

potential EPA claims under sections 106

and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606,

9607, against Progress Lansdale

Development Associates, L.P., Progress

Lansdale Development Holdings, L.P.,

Progress Development I, L.P., NSALC

Acquisitions, L.L.C., 1180 Church Road,

Inc., Pennsylvania Real Estate Holdings,

Inc., and Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania State Employees

Retirement System. (‘‘Purchasers’’). The

settlement would require the Purchasers

to, among other things, reimburse the

Environmental Protection Agency $

225,000.00 for response costs incurred

and to be incurred at the Site.

For thirty (30) days following the date

of publication of this document, the

Agency will receive written comments

relating to the Purchaser Agreement.

The Agency’s response to any comments

received will be available for public

inspection at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 27, 2000.

AVAILABILITY: The Purchaser Agreement

and additional background information

relating to the Purchaser Agreement are

available for public inspection at the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the

Purchaser Agreement may be obtained

from Thomas A. Cinti (3RC42), Senior

Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.

Comments should reference the ‘‘North

Penn Area 7 Superfund Site,

Prospective Purchaser Agreement’’ and

‘‘EPA Docket No. CERC–PPA–2000–

0003,’’ and should be forwarded to

Thomas A. Cinti at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas A. Cinti (3RC42), Senior

Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,

Phone: (215) 814–2634.

Dated: June 19, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–16364 Filed 6–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

June 20, 2000.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. No person shall be subject to

any penalty for failing to comply with

a collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 27, 2000. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW, DC 20554 or via the Internet

to jboley@fcc.gov.