Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63545

content of less than 1.5 weight percent,

fall into a ‘‘baseline’’ group. Oxygenates,

such as ethanol and methyl tertiary

butyl ether (MTBE), when used in

gasoline at oxygen levels of at least 1.5

weight percent, define separate

‘‘nonbaseline’’ groups. Additives which

contain elements other than carbon,

hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and/or

sulphur fall into separate ‘‘atypical’’

groups. There are similar grouping

requirements for diesel fuels and

additives.

Manufacturers may perform the

research independently or may join

with other manufacturers to share in the

costs for each applicable group. Several

research consortiums (groups of

manufacturers) have been formed. The

largest consortium, organized by the

American Petroleum Institute (API),

represents most of the manufacturers of

baseline and nonbaseline gasolines,

diesel fuels, and additives. The research

is structured into three tiers of

requirements for each group. Tier 1

requires a health-effects literature search

and emissions characterization.

Voluminous Tier 1 data were submitted

by API and others in 1997. Tier 2

requires short-term inhalation exposures

of laboratory animals to emissions to

screen for adverse health effects.

Alternative Tier 2 testing can be

required in lieu of the standard Tier 2

if EPA concludes that such testing

would be more appropriate. The EPA

has reached that conclusion with

respect to gasoline and gasolineoxygenate blends, and the API

consortium has been notified. However,

the alternative requirements have not

been finalized, and thus are not part of

this ICR. A similar situation exists with

the Ethyl Corporation and its manganese

additive MMT. This ICR will be

amended once those requirements are

finalized. The API submitted Tier 2 data

for diesel in 1997. Tier 3 provides for

follow-up research, if necessary. No Tier

3 requirements have been established,

and it is unlikely that any will be during

the next three years. Thus, Tier 3 is not

addressed in this ICR. 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 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: There are

approximately 100 fuel manufacturers,

1300 additive manufacturers, 800

registered fuels, and 6000 registered

additives. Due to the costs, it is likely

that only limited additional Tier 1

research will be done. Future fuels and

additives will almost exclusively be

those that can group with existing Tier

1 data, and likely will come from

manufacturers that have already paid for

the Tier 1 research. It is estimated that

new Tier 1 research will cost $500,000

per product, and that there will be only

one Tier 1 submission over the next

three years. Standard Tier 2 activity also

will be very limited. The EPA has

concluded that existing data cover Tier

2 for baseline diesel. Alternative Tier 2

requirements for baseline gasoline, the

six major nonbaseline gasoline

oxygenates, and the atypical gasoline

additive MMT, are not covered by this

ICR. It is estimated that new Tier 2

research will cost $500,000 per product,

and that there will only be one Tier 2

submission over the next three years.

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: November 24, 1997.

Charles N. Freed,

Director, Fuels and Energy Division.

[FR Doc. 97–31407 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5928–3]

Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the

Guemes Island Aquifer System; Skagit

County, Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of final determination.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

pursuant to section 1424(e) of the Safe

Drinking Water Act, and in response to

a petition from the Guemes Island

Property Owners Association, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Region 10 Administrator has

determined that the Guemes Island

aquifer system, in Skagit County,

Washington, is a sole or principal

source of drinking water, and that if

contaminated, would create a significant

hazard to public health. As result of this

action, all Federal financially-assisted

projects proposed over the designated

aquifer system will be subject to EPA

review to ensure that they do not create

a significant hazard to public health.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This determination

shall be effective for purposes of judicial

review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time on

December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: The information upon

which this determination is based is

available to the public and may be

inspected during normal business hours

at the EPA Region 10 Library, 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington,

98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Scott E. Downey, Environmental

Protection Specialist, Ground Water

Protection Unit, OW–137,

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington, 98101, 206–553–0682.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking

Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300h–3(e), Public

Law 93–523, states:

If the Administrator determines, on his

own initiative or upon petition, that an area

has an aquifer which is the sole or principal

drinking water source for the area and which,

if contaminated, would create a significant

hazard to public health, he shall publish

notice of that determination in the Federal

Register. After the publication of any such

notice, no commitment for Federal financial

assistance (through a grant, contract, loan

guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into

for any project which the Administrator

determines may contaminate such aquifer

through a recharge zone so as to create a

significant hazard to public health, but a
63546 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

commitment for Federal assistance may, if

authorized under another provision of law,

be entered into to plan or design the project

to assure that it will not so contaminate the

aquifer.

On August 1, 1994, EPA Region 10

received a petition from the President of

the Guemes Island Properties

Association requesting that EPA

designate the Guemes Island aquifer

system as a sole source aquifer (SSA).

The petition expressed several reasons

for interest in a designation, including

concern that an increasing island

population could adversely affect both

ground water quality and quantity due

to impacts from logging, road building,

and onsite septic systems on aquifer

recharge areas, and from the impact of

ground water withdrawals from new

wells; a desire to raise public awareness

about the vulnerability of the aquifer

system; a desire to raise awareness

about existing and future problems of

the water supply to Skagit County

government; and the value of SSA status

in future grant applications for further

study of the island’s ground water.

A detailed review of the petition by

EPA was delayed for about three years

due to work on an earlier designation

request. In July of 1997, the Guemes

Island review was completed and the

area appeared to meet all criteria for

SSA designation. The legal and

technical basis for the proposal was

outlined in an EPA publication titled:

‘‘Support Document for Sole Source

Aquifer Designation of the Guemes

Island Aquifer System,’’ EPA 910/R–97–

006.

II. Basis for Determination

Among the factors to be considered by

EPA in connection with the designation

of an area under section 1424(e) are: (1)

Whether the aquifer is the area’s sole or

principal source of drinking water; and

(2) whether contamination of the aquifer

would create a significant hazard to

public health.

EPA Region 10 has further interpreted

the statutory language so that ‘‘sole or

principal’’ means that the aquifer must

supply at least 50 percent of the

drinking water for the area.

Furthermore, there should be no

alternate drinking water source(s) which

can physically, legally, and

economically supply all those who

depend upon the aquifer for drinking

water, should it become contaminated.

In addition, aquifer boundaries should

be delineated based on sound

hydrogeologic principles and the best

available scientific information.

Although designation determinations

are largely based on science-based

criteria, the Regional Administrator may

also consider the overall public interest

and net environmental and public

health benefits in making a sole source

aquifer determination.

On the basis of information available

to this Agency, the Region 10

Administrator has made the following

findings:

(1) The aquifer system is the principal

source of drinking water (close to 100%)

for people on the island and there are

no alternate sources which can

physically, legally, and economically

supply all those who depend upon the

aquifer for drinking water, should it

become contaminated. Potential

alternate sources considered include

surface water, water piped in from the

mainland, bottled water, rainwater

catchment, and reverse osmosis of

seawater. None of these drinking water

sources are considered by EPA to be

feasible replacements for the entire

aquifer system due to economic barriers

or because these sources are not

consumed or utilized for domestic

purposes in significant quantities.

(2) Contamination of the aquifer

system would create a significant hazard

to public health. The aquifer system is

vulnerable to contamination through its

recharge zones from various sources and

activities including onsite septic

systems, stormwater runoff, animal

wastes, and pumping wells which can

cause intrusion of seawater into

freshwater aquifers. Scientific

information indicates there is a

hydrogeologic interconnection between

the aquifers underlying the island, and

collectively, they may be considered as

a single aquifer system. Because they are

interconnected, there is the potential for

cross- contamination from one aquifer to

another.

Because the aquifer system is

vulnerable to contamination and

restoring ground water quality can be

difficult or even impossible; and

because the aquifer system is the

principal source of drinking water for

the area and there are no other sources

which can economically supply all

those who depend upon it for drinking

water; EPA believes that contamination

of the aquifer system would pose a

significant hazard to public health.

These findings are based on

information from various sources

including the petition, EPA guidances, a

U.S. Geological Survey report, public

comments, the Skagit County Health

Department, and the Washington State

Department of Health.

III. Description of the Guemes Island

Aquifer System

The following is a summary of

information from the Support Document

available upon request from EPA Region

10. Much of the hydrogeological

information in the Support Document is

taken from the petition and from

‘‘Hydrogeology and Quality of Ground

Water on Guemes Island, Skagit County,

Washington,’’ U.S. Geological Survey

(USGS) Water-Resources Investigations

Report 94–4236, by Kahle and Olsen,

1995.

Guemes Island is a small island in

Puget Sound, located north of the City

of Anacortes in the western part of

Skagit County, Washington. The total

area of the island is approximately 8.2

square miles. The year-round

population of the island is

approximately 540, with a summer

population which nears 2,200. The

southeastern part of the island is hilly

and composed of bedrock and fractured

rock; the remainder is gently rolling and

overlain by glacial drift.

There are eight distinct geologic units

present on Guemes Island: consolidated

bedrock, glacial deposits comprised of

the Double Bluff Drift, Whidbey

Formation, Vashon advance outwash,

Vashon till, and Everson drift, and more

recent units composed of peat and

beach deposits. There is considerable

variation in the thickness of individual

units, and not all units are necessarily

present at any one location. Glacial and

recent deposits are at the land surface

over most of the island, with bedrock

exposed only on the southeastern end of

the island. Highly permeable units

within the glacial deposits also function

as the main aquifers under the island.

These units are hydraulically connected

and thus perform as an aquifer system.

Ground water quality on Guemes

Island is considered to be generally of

good quality. The aquifer system

underlying the island is considered to

be vulnerable to contamination due to

the highly heterogeneous nature of the

sand and gravels making up the

aquifers, and the inconsistent confining

nature of the surficial confining unit

and the Whidbey confining unit.

Chlorides and nitrates are the

contaminants of the most concern. High

chloride concentrations in well water on

the island are due to either the presence

of relict seawater in aquifer materials, or

seawater moving inward from Puget

Sound (seawater intrusion). Excessive

ground water withdrawal in a nearshore area can cause large local

movement of the freshwater-seawater

interface especially if the aquifer is thin.

Nitrates in ground water can originate

from septic tanks, animal wastes, and

fertilizer.

The Guemes Island SSA boundaries

are representative of an aquifer system

that encompasses the entire Guemes
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices 63547

Island area. The aquifer system is

bounded on all sides by Puget Sound.

The vertical extent of the aquifer system

at depth includes all potable waterbearing geologic units underlying the

island, including both the

unconsolidated glacial deposits and the

bedrock unit. Please see the Support

Document for a more detailed

hydrogeologic description.

IV. Project Reviews

The Safe Drinking Water Act

authorizes EPA to review proposed

Federal financially-assisted projects

which have the potential to contaminate

a designated SSA. Federal assistance

may be denied if EPA determines that

a project may contaminate the SSA

through its recharge zone so as to create

a significant hazard to public health.

Outright denial of Federal funding is

rare as most projects pose limited risk

to ground water quality or can be

feasibly modified to prevent ground

water contamination. Proposed projects

that are funded entirely by state, local,

or private concerns are not subject to

SSA review by EPA.

EPA does not review all possible

Federal financially-assisted projects, but

tries to focus on those projects which

pose the greatest risk to public health.

Memorandums of Understanding have

been developed between EPA and

various Federal funding agencies to help

identify, coordinate, and evaluate

projects. EPA relies to the maximum

extent possible on existing local and

state mechanisms to protect SSAs from

contamination. Whenever feasible, EPA

coordinates project reviews with local

and state agencies that have a

responsibility for ground water

protection. Their comments are given

full consideration in the Federal review

process.

V. Public Participation and Response to

Comments

The following is a summary of

information from the ‘‘Response to

Public Comments for the Guemes Island

Sole Source Aquifer Proposal’’ available

upon request from EPA Region 10.

EPA used various methods to notify

and involve the public and others in the

Guemes Island SSA designation process.

The outreach effort included briefings to

local and State government, distribution

of EPA facts sheets, placing information

in local libraries, a public advertisement

in the local newspaper, and providing

information for several newspaper and

newsletter articles.

A public comment period was in

effect from August 27 to October 11,

1997, and a public meeting was

conducted on the island by EPA staff on

September 19, 1997. The purpose of the

meeting was to present information

about the proposal, answer any

questions, and take public comments

directly from the island community or

other interested parties. About 40

people attended the meeting. Written

comments were accepted on the

proposal until the end of the public

comment period. All comments were

reviewed and considered by EPA, but

did not lead to any changes to EPA’s

determination that Guemes Island

qualifies for SSA status.

During the comment period, EPA

received fourteen written comments in

the mail and ten oral comments at the

public meeting. Of the written

comments, ten persons expressed

support for the designation, while four

opposed it. Formal comments at the

public meeting were evenly split with

five persons supporting the designation

and five opposed. Individuals submitted

most of the comments, but a community

organization and a State agency also

commented.

The primary reason given for

supporting the proposed action was a

belief that the designation would

increase protection of the island—s

ground water. Many cited the

educational benefit that SSA status

would have on island residents and on

Skagit County government on the source

of the island’s drinking water, its value

and vulnerability, and the need for

protection and conservation. Some

people commented that protection of

the island’s ground water was important

because there are no feasible alternate

sources of drinking water. Some people

felt that ground water would be better

protected because of additional

environmental review of proposed

projects, or because it could hinder the

siting of future landfills on the island.

Some supported the designation

because they felt that added protection

of the island’s drinking water could

help to protect property values.

Several people opposed the

designation because they did not want

an increase of Federal involvement in

local affairs. In response, the SSA

program can increase Federal

involvement, but only in a very limited

way—if Federal assistance is proposed

for a project, EPA can review the

proposal and ask for changes if drinking

water supplies are endangered. This

review process is meant to support and

enhance, rather than duplicate or

supplant, local ground water protection

measures. Many communities welcome

the technical assistance and

coordinating services they receive from

EPA to protect their drinking water.

Some people commented that the

designation would not contribute to

further ground water protection. In

response, the SSA program is not

intended to be a comprehensive ground

water protection program. EPA

authority is limited to the review of

Federal projects, which are likely to be

minimal in number and scope for the

island. However, there are many other

benefits from an SSA designation, that

can be locally-driven, such as greater

awareness and stewardship of a

community’s drinking water supply.

This can lead to an increase of both

individual and local governmental

actions to protect the resource.

Two persons commented that SSA

designation was unnecessary because

the island’s ground water was not

already contaminated. In response, the

SSA program is a pollution prevention

program. Experience has shown that it

is much smarter, and considerably less

expensive, to prevent ground water

pollution in the first place, rather than

trying to clean up a degraded water

supply after a problem is discovered.

Two persons objected to the

designation because they believed that

the petitioner had requested a part of

the island be excluded from the

designated area. In response, the

original petition correctly identified that

at least one portion of the island (a

bedrock tip area that discharges ground

water to Puget Sound) could be viewed

as a hydrogeologically separate part of

the island. However, the petition

specifically requested that the entire

island be designated as a sole source

aquifer. EPA concurred that it made

better technical and programmatic sense

to designate the entire island.

One person raised questions on the

technical basis for the designation,

claiming that the extent and accuracy of

the data used in the petition and in

EPA’s Support Document was lacking

and flawed. In response, EPA used the

best available scientific information and

best professional judgement and

believes that the technical basis for the

designation is based on sound

hydrogeologic principles.

VI. Economic and Regulatory Impact

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5

U.S.C. 605(b), I hereby certify that this

final determination will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. For purposes

of this Certification, the ‘‘small entity’’

shall have the same meaning as given in

section 601 of the RFA. This action is

only applicable to Guemes Island.

The only affected entities will be

those businesses, organizations, or
63548 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 230 / Monday, December 1, 1997 / Notices

government jurisdictions that request

Federal financial assistance for projects

which have the potential for

contaminating the aquifer system so as

to create a significant hazard to public

health. EPA does not expect to review

small isolated commitments of Federal

financial assistance on an individual

basis, unless a cumulative impact on the

aquifer is anticipated. Accordingly, the

number of affected small entities will be

minimal.

For those small entities which are

subject to review, the impact of today’s

action will not be significant. Major

projects subject to this review will be

proceeded by a ground water impact

assessment required pursuant to other

Federal laws, such as the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as

amended 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.

Integration of those related review

procedures with SSA review will allow

EPA and other Federal agencies to avoid

delay or duplication of effort in

approving financial assistance, thus

minimizing any adverse effect on those

small entities which are affected.

Finally, today’s action does not prevent

grants of Federal financial assistance

which may be available to any affected

small entity in order to pay for the

redesign of a project to assure protection

of the aquifer system.

Under Executive Order 12866, EPA

must judge whether a regulation is

‘‘major’’ and therefore subject to the

requirement of a Regulatory Impact

Analysis. This action is not major

because it will not have an annual effect

of $100 million or more on the

economy, will not cause any major

increases in costs or prices, and will not

have significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or the ability

of United States enterprises to compete

in domestic or export markets.

VII. Summary

This determination affects only the

Guemes Island aquifer system located in

Skagit County, Washington. As a result

of this determination, all Federal

financially-assisted projects proposed in

the designated area will be subject to

EPA review to ensure that they do not

create a significant hazard to public

health.

Dated: November 18, 1997.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator,U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 97–31273 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5930–5]

Ozone, Particulate Matter and Regional

Haze Implementation Programs

Subcommittee Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: On September 11, 1995 (60

FR 47172), the EPA announced the

establishment of the Ozone, Particulate

Matter and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs

Subcommittee under the Clean Air Act

Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The

CAAAC was established on November

8, 1990 (55 FR 46993) pursuant to the

Federal Advisory Committee Act

(FACA) (5 U.S.C. app I). The purpose of

the Subcommittee is to provide advice

and recommendations on integrated

approaches for implementing

potentially new national ambient air

quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone

and particulate matter, as well as a

regional haze program.

DATES: Open Meeting: Notice is hereby

given that the Subcommittee for Ozone,

Particulate Matter and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs will hold its

next public meeting on Wednesday,

December 17, 1997 (from 9:00 a.m. to

5:30 p.m.) and Thursday, December 18,

1997 (from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be

held at the New Orleans Hilton

Riverside, Poydras at the Mississippi

River, New Orleans, Louisiana,

telephone: (504) 561–0500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on the

Subcommittee for Ozone, Particulate

Matter and Regional Haze

Implementation Programs, please

contact Mr. William F. Hamilton,

Designated Federal Officer, at 919–54l–

5498, or by mail at U.S. EPA, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

MD–15, Research Triangle Park, NC

27711. When a draft agenda is

developed, a copy can be downloaded

from the: (1) Ozone/Particulate Matter/

Regional Haze FACA Bulletin Board,

which is located on the Office of Air

Quality Planning and Standards

Technology Transfer Network (OAQPS

TTN); (2) the OAQPS TTN Web Site

(http://www.epa.gov/ttn); or (3) by

contacting Ms. Denise M. Gerth at 919–

541–5550.

Dated: November 21, 1997.

Henry Thomas,

Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–31406 Filed 11–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[OPPTS–400121; FRL–5760–1]

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-To-Know; Availability of

Guidance Documents

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: EPA has prepared several

documents to assist industries to

understand their compliance

responsibilities in association with

section 313 of the Emergency Planning

and Community Right-to-Know Act of

1986 (EPCRA). One of the documents

being made available today is a revision

to the EPCRA section 313 Questions and

Answers document, which provides

guidance to commonly asked

interpretive questions. In addition to

this document, several industry-specific

guidance documents have been

developed for facilities in industry

groups recently added to the list of

industries covered under EPCRA section

313. These documents are intended to

assist these recently added industries

understand requirements under EPCRA

section 313 and more easily determine

if their facility is likely to have any

reporting responsibilities. The industryspecific guidance documents for the

recently added industry groups are

intended for use for activities beginning

on January 1, 1998, with reports due on

or before July 1, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim

Crawford, 202-260-1715, e-mail:

crawford.tim@epamail.epa.gov, for

specific information regarding the

industry-specific guidance documents

or Sara Hisel McCoy, 202-260-7937, email: hiselmccoy.sara@epamail.epa.gov, for

questions related to the Questions and

Answers document. To receive a copy of

these documents, please access EPA’s

Internet site at the following address:

www.epa.gov/opptintr/tri, or you may

contact the EPCRA Hotline and request

a copy at Mail Code 5101, 401 M St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll Free:

1-800-535-0202, in Virginia and Alaska:

703-412-9877 or Toll Free TDD: 1-800-

535-7672.