Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60505

No. 2 of Grant County, Washington,

Order on Initial Decision.

Electric Agenda

E–1. Docket Nos. EC96–13–000, 001,

ER96–1236–000, 001, ER96–2560–

000 and 001, IES Utilities, Inc.,

Interstate Power Company,

Wisconsin Power & Light Company,

South Beloit Water, Gas & Electric

Company, Heartland Energy

Services and Industrial Energy

Applications, Inc., Opinion and

Order on Proposed Merger.

Oil and Gas Agenda

I. Pipeline Rate Matters

PR–1.

Docket No. RM96–1–007, Standards

for Business Practices of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Policy

Statement.

PR–2.

Docket Nos. RP97–391–000 and

RP97–149–002, Gas Research

Institute

Docket No. RM97–3–000, Research,

Development and Demonstration

Funding, Opinion and Order on Gas

Research Institute’s 1998 Budget

and on Proposed Settlement.

II. Pipeline Certificate Matters

PC–1.

Reserved

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–29732 Filed 11–6–97; 11:54 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5918–1]

Proposed Modification of a General

NPDES Permit for Facilities Related to

Oil and Gas Extraction on the North

Slope of the Brooks Range, Alaska

(Permit Number AKG–31–0000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency, (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed modification

of a general permit.

SUMMARY: This proposed modification of

a general permit is intended to regulate

activities related to the extraction of oil

and gas on the North Slope of the

Brooks Range in the state of Alaska. The

proposed modified general permit

includes a provision to extend the area

of coverage to include facilities off-shore

of the North Slope Borough of Alaska.

The extension would cover sanitary

and/or domestic wastewater discharges,

construction dewatering, and

hydrostatic test water. The proposed

modified general permit also includes a

new outfall designation for the

discharge of hydrostatic test waters. In

addition, several sections of the permit

have been changed to provide

clarification on issues that have been

confusing during the administration of

the permit to date. When issued, the

proposed modified permit will establish

effluent limitations, standards,

prohibitions and other conditions on

discharges from covered facilities. These

conditions are based on existing

national effluent guidelines, the state of

Alaska’s Water Quality Standards and

material contained in the administrative

record. A description of the basis for the

conditions and requirements of the

proposed modified general permit is

given in the fact sheet.

DATES: Interested persons may submit

comments on the draft general permit to

EPA, Region 10 at the address below.

Comments must be received in the

operations Office by December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

modified general permit should be sent

to Cindi Godsey, U.S. EPA, Region 10;

Alaska Operations Office, 222 W. 7th

Street #19, Anchorage, Alaska, 99513–

7588.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the Draft Modified Permit and

Fact Sheet are available upon request.

Requests may be made to Jeanette

Carriveau at (206) 553–1214 or to Cindi

Godsey at (907) 271–6561. Requests may

also be electronically mailed to:

CARRIVEAU.JEANETTE@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV

or

GODSEY.CINDI@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from the

review requirements of Executive Order

12866 pursuant to Section 6 of that

order.

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

After review of the facts presented in

the notice printed above, I hereby certify

pursuant to the provision of 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this modified general NPDES

permit will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Moreover, the permit reduces a

significant administrative burden on

regulated sources.

Dated: October 30, 1997.

Philip G. Millam,

Director, Office of Water, Region 10

Fact Sheet

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 10, Anchorage

Operations Office, Room 537, Federal

Building 222 W. 7th Avenue, #19

Anchorage, Alaska 99513–7588, (907)

271–6561

Date: November 3, 1997.

General Permit No. AKG–31–0000.

PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF A

GENERAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT

DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM

(NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE

POLLUTANTS PURSUANT TO THE

PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER

ACT (the Act) FOR

Facilities Related To Oil and Gas

Extraction

This fact sheet includes (a) the

tentative determination of the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

to modify the general permit, (b)

information on public comment, public

hearing and appeal procedures, (c) a

description of the proposed discharges,

and (d) a listing of tentative effluent

limitations and other conditions.

Persons wishing to comment on the

tentative modifications contained in the

proposed modified general permit may

do so by the expiration date of the

Public Notice. All written comments

should be submitted to EPA as

described in the Public Comments

section.

After the expiration date of the Public

Notice, the Director, Office of Water,

will make final determinations with

respect to permit issuance. A General

Permit follows rulemaking procedures

so EPA’s issuance and promulgation

activities must be conducted in

accordance with the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA). The modifications

in this general permit will become

effective 30 days after publication of the

final modified general permit in the

Federal Register according to section

553(d) of the APA. Anyone wishing to

appeal the modifications in this general

permit must do so in court according to

40 CFR 124.71. Interested persons may

challenge the modifications, within 120

days of issuance, in the Circuit Court of

Appeals of the United States under

section 509(b)(1) of the Act.

The proposed NPDES modified

general permit and other related

documents are on file and may be

inspected at the above address any time

between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,

Monday through Friday. Copies and

other information may be requested by

writing to EPA at the above address to
60506 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

the attention of Cindi Godsey, or by

calling (907) 269–6561.

Technical Information

1. Summary of Modifications

This proposed modified general

permit includes a provision to extend

the area of coverage to include facilities

off-shore of the North Slope Borough of

Alaska. This coverage area is already in

effect for discharges from ice roads

constructed of gravel pit water. The

extension would cover sanitary and/or

domestic wastewater discharges and

construction dewatering.

The modified proposed permit also

includes a new outfall designation for

the discharge of hydrostatic test waters.

Hydrostatic testing must be done when

pipe segments are newly installed or

replaced. Water is used to pressure test

the pipe to verify mechanical strength

and integrity. This water is discharged

when the hydrostatic testing is

completed. Waters from hydrostatic

testing can contain small quantities of

residual materials that are left in the

pipe prior to testing such as dust and

welding slag. Common treatment and

control measures used for hydrostatic

testing waters include one or more of

the following methods: velocity

reduction on splash pads; erosion

control; rubble mound infiltration into

dry stream channels; settling ponds;

pumping to upland areas; and/or

pumping to ice and snow. The location

and volume of discharges depend upon

circumstances or the particular project

involved.

Several sections of the permit have

been changed to provide clarification on

issues that have been confusing during

the administration of the permit to date.

The monitoring requirements for

settleable solids and turbidity have been

changed to eliminate measurement of

‘‘natural conditions’’ if the effluent

levels are low enough. Also, some

changes have been made based on the

additions, changes in regulation and

redundancy of permit requirements.

Renumbering of Permit Parts where

necessary and the correction of

typographical errors has been done

without being noted.

The basis for these additions and

changes follow.

2. Coastal Guidelines

The New Source Performance

Standards in the Oil and Gas Extraction

Point Source Category—Subpart D,

Coastal Subcategory were promulgated

December 16, 1996 (61 FR 66129). These

include a provision for no discharge of

garbage. This provision was not

included in the original general permit,

but is being added in this modification.

3. Receiving Waters

The receiving waters for the

hydrostatic test water discharges are

waters of the United States including

tundra wetlands along the Chukchi and

Beaufort Sea coasts, which are classified

in 18 AAC 70 as Classes (1)(A), (B), and

(C) for use in drinking, culinary, and

food processing, agriculture,

aquaculture, and industrial water

supply; contact and secondary

recreation; and growth and propagation

of fish, shellfish, other aquatic life and

wildlife. Since these waterbodies are

protected for all uses, the most

restrictive water quality standards will

be applied in this modified general

permit.

The receiving waters for the man

camp sanitary and domestic discharges,

hydrostatic test water discharges and

construction dewatering in this permit

modification include marine waters of

the Chukchi or Beaufort Seas, which are

classified in 18 AAC 70 as Classes

(2)(A), (B), (C), and (D) for use in

aquaculture, seafood processing, and

industrial water supply; contact and

secondary recreation; growth and

propagation of fish, shellfish, other

aquatic life, and wildlife; and harvesting

for consumption of raw mollusks or

other raw aquatic life.

4. Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation

EPA has finalized a document entitled

‘‘Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation

for Area of Coverage Under the Arctic

NPDES General Permit for Oil and Gas

Exploration’’ (ODCE). Since this

document covers the same area and the

same or similar pollutants of concern as

this modified draft general permit, EPA

is proposing to use this document to

satisfy the requirements of section 403

of the Act.

The additional discharges contained

within this modified draft general

permit that may be made to marine

waters are sanitary and domestic

wastewater from construction and

operation camps, construction

dewatering and hydrostatic test water

discharges.

The ODCE directly addresses the

discharge of sanitary and domestic

wastewaters. Sanitary discharges in the

modified draft general permit are

required to meet the state’s secondary

treatment standards as well as the state’s

water quality standards for fecal

coliform and chlorine. Domestic

discharges are not measured

analytically, but are not expected to

produce substantial pollutant loading.

Neither of these discharges are expected

to have a detrimental effect on the

marine environment.

The ODCE does not specifically

address discharges from construction

dewatering or hydrostatic test water

discharges, but comparisons can be

made. The water from both types of

discharges must meet effluent

limitations included in the permit. If

followed, these limitations should

assure a low level of sediment and

turbidity, the primary pollutants of

concern in the discharges. These

discharges should be considered less of

an environmental impact than the

discharge of cement slurries which are

addressed in the ODCE. No adverse

impacts are expected from cement

discharges so it is also expected that no

adverse impacts will occur from

construction dewatering or hydrostatic

testing water discharges if the effluent

limitations of the permit are met.

5. Statutory Basis For Permit Conditions

Sections 301(b), 304, 308, 401, 402

and 403 of the Act provide the basis for

the permit conditions contained in the

modified draft general permit. The

general requirements of these sections

fall into three categories, which are

described below. A discussion of the

basis for specific permit conditions

follows in part 6.

A. Technology-Based Effluent

Limitations

NPDES permits for industrial

dischargers must incorporate effluent

limitations which are based on the

wastewater treatment technology that

can be applied to each type of industry.

The Act provides for the

implementation of technology-based

effluent limitations in two stages. First,

dischargers were required to achieve

effluent limitations which reflect the

application of the best practicable

control technology currently available

(BPT). Second, dischargers were

required to achieve effluent limitations

which result from best available

technology economically achievable

(BAT) and best conventional pollutant

control technology (BCT). BCT effluent

limitations apply only to conventional

pollutants (pH, BOD, oil and grease,

suspended solids, and fecal coliform). In

no case may BCT or BAT be less

stringent than BPT. Where EPA has not

yet developed guidelines for a particular

industry, permit conditions must be

established using Best Professional

Judgement (BPJ) procedures. BPT will

be used in lieu of BCT and BAT where

EPA has not established these

technology-based limitations.

The effluent guidelines used in this

modified general permit are part 435—
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60507

Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source

Category, Subpart A—Off-shore

Category. The New Source Performance

Standard (NSPS) limitations are applied

to the discharge of sanitary and/or

domestic wastewaters [40 CFR 435.15].

B. State of Alaska Water Quality

Standards and Limitations

Section 301(b)(1) of the Act requires

the establishment of limitations in

permits necessary to meet water quality

standards by July 1, 1977. All discharges

to state waters must comply with state

and local coastal management plans as

well as with state water quality

standards, including the state’s

antidegradation policy. Discharges to

state waters must also comply with

limitations imposed by the state as part

of its coastal management program

consistency determinations, and of its

certification of NPDES permits under

section 401 of the Act.

The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR

122.44(d)(1) require that permits

include water quality-based limits

which ‘‘Achieve water quality standards

established under section 303 of the

CWA, including State narrative criteria

for water quality.’’

C. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act

Under section 308 of the Act and 40

CFR 122.44(i), the Director must require

a discharger to conduct monitoring to

determine compliance with effluent

limitations and to assist in the

development of effluent limitations.

EPA has included several monitoring

requirements in this permit, as listed

below.

6. Specific Permit Conditions

The determination of appropriate

conditions for each discharge was

accomplished through consideration of

technology-based effluent limitations

and inclusion of permit terms necessary

to ensure compliance with state water

quality standards. Discussions of the

specific effluent limitations and

monitoring requirements appear below.

A. Modular Camp Discharges—Offshore

(1) Sanitary Wastewater Discharges

The sanitary wastes are made up of

human body wastes from the toilets and

urinals. The volume and concentration

of these wastes vary widely with time,

occupancy, and operational status.

(A) Technology-based limitations

(i) NSPS Requirements [40 CFR

435.15]

(a) Floating solids: For sanitary wastes

the NSPS level of treatment prohibits

floating solids for facilities continuously

manned by 9 or fewer persons or

intermittently manned by any number

of persons.

(b) Chlorine: The requirement of

maintaining residual chlorine levels as

close as possible to, but no less than 1

mg/L for sanitary discharges for

facilities staffed by 10 or more people.

(ii) Secondary Treatment

[18 AAC 72.040 and 18 AAC

72.990(64)]

(a) Biochemical Oxygen Demand

(BOD5): The regulations for secondary

treatment require that BOD meet a 7 day

average of 45 mg/L, a 30 day average of

30 mg/L and the arithmetic mean of the

values for effluent samples collected in

a 24-hour period does not exceed 60

mg/L.

(b) Total Suspended Solids (TSS): The

regulations for secondary treatment

require that SS meet a 7 day average of

45 mg/L, a 30 day average of 30 mg/L

and the arithmetic mean of the values

for effluent samples collected in a 24-

hour period does not exceed 60 mg/L.

(c) pH: pH levels be maintained

between 6 and 9 standard units.

(B) State Water Quality Standards [18

AAC 70]

The waterbodies considered to be

potential receiving waters under this

general permit are protected for all uses.

The most protective criteria will be used

in the permit. The marine and fresh

water criteria result in identical permit

limitations that are identical except for

fecal coliform.

(i) Fecal Coliform: The most

protective criteria for fecal coliform is

for the Harvesting for Consumption of

Raw Mollusks or Other Raw Aquatic

Life. The water quality standards (WQS)

state, ‘‘Based on a 5-tube decimal

dilution test, the fecal coliform median

MPN may not exceed 14 FC/100 ml, and

not more than 10% of the samples may

exceed a fecal coliform median MPN of

43 FC/100 ml.’’

(ii) Chlorine: The most protective

criteria for chlorine is for aquaculture.

The WQS state, ‘‘May not exceed 2.0 μg/

l for salmonid fish or 10.0 μg/l for other

organisms.’’ The term ‘‘salmonid fish’’ is

defined in the permit as the family of

fish, Salmonidae, which includes

salmon, trout, grayling, whitefish, char,

ciscoe and inconnu. The permit is

structured so that there is some

flexibility for those facilities discharging

to waterbodies not designated for

salmonid fish. The permittee is

expected to consult Alaska Department

of Fish and Game to determine whether

the more restrictive limitation applies to

their facility.

(iii) pH: The most protective

limitations are for aquaculture and the

growth and propagation of fish,

shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlife.

This level is 6.5 to 8.5 standard units.

A mixing zone for chlorine was

incorporated into the original general

permit through the § 401 Certification

for tundra discharges of sanitary

wastewater. It is expected that a similar

provision for sanitary wastewater

discharges to an off-shore ice

environment will be included in the

§ 401 Certification of this general permit

modification. If the State does not

include the mixing zone, the water

quality standards for chlorine will apply

at the end of the pipe. The limitation on

fecal coliform will assure that

disinfection requirements are met

without invoking the technology-based

limitation requiring a minimum

chlorine level.

(2) Domestic Wastewater Discharges

Domestic wastewater refers to

materials discharged from sinks,

showers, laundries, safety showers,

eyewash stations and galleys.

(A) Technology-based Limitations

NSPS Requirements [40 CFR 435.15]

(i) No discharge of Floating solids.

(ii) No discharge of Foam.

(iii) No discharge of garbage.

(B) Water quality-based Limitations

Oil and Grease. Applicable state

standards for oil and grease are limited

to ‘‘shall not cause a film, sheen, or

discoloration on the surface or floor of

the water body or adjoining shorelines.’’

The potential source of oil and grease in

this discharge would be excess cooking

oils. While the ordinary cleaning of

utensil and cooking appliances is

acceptable, the discharge of excess

cooking oil is not. EPA has determined

that the state criteria can be met by

requiring that no kitchen oils from food

preparation be mixed with the

wastewater being discharged.

The requirement of low phosphate

detergent use shall be included in the

BMP Plan required for this type of

discharge. The inclusion of this BMP

will avoid the need for a phosphate

limit yet still control nutrient loading.

(3) Combined Discharges

If sanitary wastewaters are combined

with domestic wastewaters, the entire

flow is then considered to be sanitary

wastewater and the limitations

contained in the permit for sanitary

wastes apply to the discharge.

B. Hydrostatic Test Water

(1) Technology-Based Limitations

There are no EPA effluent guidelines

for discharges from hydrostatic testing.

Therefore, the limitations in this permit

are based on Best Professional

Judgement (BPJ) which has been
60508 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices

established for this type of discharge in

the permit for Alyeska Pipeline Service,

AK–005056–3. For this discharge, EPA

is required to establish limitations that

can be achieved through the use of Best

Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT).

Sediment. The constituents of the

discharge generated by hydrostatic

testing are primarily small quantities of

inorganic residual materials that are left

in the pipe prior to testing, such as dust

and welding slag. It has been

determined that appropriate technology

for these discharges are physical

treatment methods, such as filtration,

overland treatment, and/or settling

ponds that can control settleable solids

and turbidity. This technology is

therefore established as BCT and BAT

for hydrostatic testing discharges. The

effluent limit for sediment is 0.2 ml/L.

Water Quality-Based Limitations

(A) Sediment. There is a reasonable

potential for violations to occur should

pumping be conducted improperly. The

sediment criteria calls for ‘‘no

measurable increase in concentrations

of settleable solids above natural

conditions, as measure by the

volumetric Imhoff cone.’’

(B) Turbidity. Due to the nature of the

discharge, a turbidity limitation is being

proposed in the general permit for this

category of discharge. According to the

WQS, the most protective turbidity

criteria applies to fresh water sources

classified for use as drinking water and

contact recreation not exceed 5

nephelometric turbidity units (NTU)

above natural conditions when the

natural turbidity when is 50 NTU or

less; and more than 10% increase in

turbidity when the natural conditions is

more than 50 NTU, not to exceed a

maximum increase of 25 NTU.’’ The

most protective marine criteria is for

aquaculture, contact and secondary

recreation and states ‘‘May not exceed

25 nephelometric turbidity units

(NTU).’’

(C) pH. For fresh waters, the most

protective limitations on pH are for

aquaculture and contact recreation. This

level is 6.5 to 8.5 standard units. For

marine waters, the most protective

limitations are for aquaculture and the

growth and propagation of fish,

shellfish, other aquatic life and wildlife.

This level is 6.5 to 8.5 standard units.

Oil and Grease/Hydrocarbons.

Applicable state standards for oil and

grease are limited to ‘‘shall not cause a

film, sheen, or discoloration on the

surfaces or floor of the water body or

adjoining shorelines.’’ EPA has

determined that the state criteria can be

met by a requirement of no discharge of

floating solids, visible foam, or oily

wastes which produce a sheen on the

surface of the receiving water.

7. Best Management Practices (BMP)

Plan and Monitoring Requirements

The justification for these

requirements in the modified general

permit are the same as those used in the

original general permit.

8. Notice of Intent (NOI) Language

Modification

The language in the original general

permit was confusing to many

permittees. The intent of the original

language was to give exploration

facilities the opportunity to notify EPA

that there was going to be a discharge

without specifying exactly where it

would be until the last minute. The

confusion came on the part of operators

who knew where they would be and

when they would be there.

The new language does several things.

It requires only one notice if a facility

knows where the discharge will be

when the notice is filed. The language

still gives the opportunity to submit a

notice without knowing an exact

location and then giving more details at

a later date. The language keeps the

ability of a mobile camp to designate an

area of coverage rather than a single

point of discharge. The new language

also clarifies the misconception that a

permit was not effective until 45 days

after the NOI was submitted. This was

never the intent of this section. If an

NOI was received on September 26 and

the discharge was authorized by letter

on September 29, the permit has no

restrictions making the effective date of

the permit 45 days after September 26.

There are some permits that specify

winter discharges that were issued in

the summer. There is an expectation

that a time delay applies in those

instances.

9. Settleable Solids and Turbidity

The footnote in tables where

settleable solids monitoring is required

has been changed so that monitoring of

natural conditions is not mandatory if

the effluent levels of this parameter are

at low levels. This change occurs in the

sections for gravel pit dewatering and

construction dewatering. The water

quality standards indicate that the limit

on sediment via measuring settleable

solids is ‘‘No increase above natural

conditions.’’ A facility reporting nondetect (less than the detection level of

0.2 ml/L) for the discharge would be in

compliance with the water quality

standard no matter what the level of

sediment was in the receiving water.

The turbidity monitoring

requirements have also been changed so

that measurement of natural conditions

is not required should the effluent

measures show low levels. This change

occurs in the sections for construction

dewatering and appears in the section

for hydrostatic testing discharges. The

water quality standards indicate that the

limit on turbidity is ‘‘5 NTUs above

natural conditions.’’ A facility reporting

5 NTUs or less for the discharge would

be in compliance with the water quality

standard no matter what the level of

turbidity was in the receiving water.

10. Redundancies, Changes and

Additions

A. Redundancies

(1) In Permit Part I.A. there seemed to

be a redundancy in the table saying that

discharges from these were covered in

marine waters and then footnoting it to

say that this would be off-shore of the

coverage area. The footnote has been

eliminated.

(2) In Permit Parts II.A.1.c., II.A.3. and

II.B.3. the original general permit

required that a discharge be moved

every 5 days with the basis of this

requirement being avoidance of chlorine

burn as well as nutrient and/or

sediment loading of the tundra. This

level of control is also expressed in the

BMP requirements for these sections so

the requirement dictating how

something might be done has been

removed since that the permit already

says it must be done. This give facilities

more flexibility in how they meet these

requirements of the permit.

(3) Permit Parts II.C.2. and II.D.2. have

monitoring requirements that are

specific to open water discharges when

Permit Parts II.C.3.b. and II.D.3.b. say

that monitoring to non-open waters does

not apply. The footnotes in the tables

have been revised to eliminate the

mention of discharges to open waters.

B. Changes

(1) In the original general permit,

Permit Parts II.C.3.b. and II.D.3.b. said,

‘‘Although effluent limitations will not

be measured * * *’’ In the development

of this modification, it was pointed out

that limitations are not measured but

parameters are. This change has been

incorporated into this modification.

(2) Permit Part IV.B.1. lists the civil

and administrative penalties for a

violation of the permit as $25,000. A

change to $27,500 was noticed in the

Federal Register (61 FR 69369,

December 31, 1996) so this new level is

included in the modification of this

general permit.

(3) Permit part II.F.1. has been

changed due to changes in the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 217 / Monday, November 10, 1997 / Notices 60509

notification requirements to gain

coverage under this general permit.

Since the second notice is no longer

required from all facilities, the BMP

Plan is required to be certified at least

seven days prior to the initiation of

discharges. The time frame is the same

as in the original general permit but the

link to a second notice has been

removed.

C. Additions

In Permit Part VI. (Definitions), the

definitions of the terms garbage, offshore, open waters and victual waste

have been added based on other

additions and changes to the general

permit.

11. Other Legal Requirements

A. Oil Spill Requirements

Section 311 of the Act prohibits the

discharge of oil and hazardous materials

in harmful quantities. Routine

discharges specifically controlled by a

permit are excluded from the provisions

of section 311. However, this general

permit does not preclude the institution

of legal action or relieve permittees from

any responsibilities, or penalties for

other, unauthorized discharges of oil

and hazardous materials which are

covered by section 311 of the Act.

B. Coastal Zone Management Act

A determination that the activities

allowed by this draft modified general

permit are consistent with the Alaska

Coastal Management Plan must be made

in accordance with the Coastal Zone

Management Act before a permit will be

issued.

C. State Water Quality Standards and

State Certification

Whereas state waters are involved in

this draft modified general permit, the

provisions of section 401 of the Act will

apply. Furthermore, in accordance with

40 CFR 124.01(c)(1), public notice of the

draft modified permit has been provided

to the State of Alaska and Alaska state

agencies having jurisdiction over fish,

shellfish, and wildlife resources, and

over coastal zone management plans.

D. Marine Protection, Research and

Sanctuaries Act

No marine sanctuaries as designated

by this Act exist in the vicinity of the

permit areas.

E. Endangered Species Act

EPA has made a decision that the

discharges authorized in this modified

general permit are not likely to affect

species of concern in the project area.

Letters were sent to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFW) and to the

National Marine Fisheries Service

(NMFS) on October 6, 1997, requesting

information to the extent of threatened

and endangered species on the North

Slope of Alaska relating to the

modifications in this proposed modified

general permit.

References

Eddy, Samuel and James C. Underhill.

How to know the freshwater fishes.

Snoeyink, Vernon L. and David Jenkins.

1980. Water Chemistry.

U.S. EPA. 1993. Guidance Manual for

Developing Best Management

Practices (BMP). October 1993.

U.S. EPA. 1995. Ocean Discharge

Criteria Evaluation for Area of

Coverage Under the Arctic NPDES

General Permit for Oil and Gas

Exploration. Prepared with the

assistance of Tetra Tech, Inc. March

1995.

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit

AK–005056–3 with corresponding

fact sheet. Effective July 30, 1993.

Expires July 30, 1998.

[FR Doc. 97–29392 Filed 11–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information Collection

Being Reviewed by the Federal

Communications Commission for

Extension Under Delegated Authority 5

CFR 1320 Authority, Comments

Requested.

November 4, 1997.

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, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Pub. L. 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: Persons wishing to comment on

this information collection should

submit comments January 9, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Jerry

Cowden, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 240–B, 2000 M St.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via

internet to jcowden@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collection(s) contact Jerry

Cowden at 202–418–0447 or via internet

at jcowden@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0314.

Title: 47 CFR 76.209 Fairness

doctrine; personal attacks; political

attacks.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit entities.

Number of Respondents: 1,312.

Estimated Time Per Response: 2–3

hours.

Total Annual Burden: We estimate

that there are approximately 525

cablecast personal attacks made on an

annual basis which would require cable

operators to comply with the

notification requirements set forth in

76.209(b). The average burden for cable

operators to comply with these

notification requirements is estimated to

be 2 hours per incident. 525

notifications of cablecast personal

attacks×2 hours=1,050 hours. We

estimate that there are approximately

787 cablecast political editorials made

on an annual basis which would require

cable operators to comply with the

notification requirements set forth in

76.209(d). The average burden for cable

operators to comply with these

notification requirements is estimated to

be 3 hours per cablecast. 787×3

hours=2,361 hours. Total estimated

annual burden to

respondents=1,050+2,361=3,411 hours.

Needs and Uses: Section 76.209(b)

requires that when, during origination

cablecasting, an attack is made upon the

honesty, character, integrity, or like

personal qualities of an identified

person or group, the respective cable

television system operator shall, within

a reasonable time and in no event later

than one week after the attack, transmit

to the person or group attacked (1)

notification of the date, time and