Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76941

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS—Continued

State citation Title subject Adoption date

EPA

approval

date

Federal register notice

*******

Section 335–3–14–.03 ................. Standards for Granting Permits ... August 10, 2000 ........ 12/8/00 65 FR 76940

Section 335–3–14–.04 ................. Air Permits Authorizing Construction in Clean Air Areas (Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permitting (PSD)).August 10, 2000 ........ 12/8/00 65 FR 76940

Section 335–3–14–.05 ................. Air Permits Authorizing Construction in or Near Nonattainment

Areas.

August 10, 2000 ........ 12/8/00 65 FR 76940

*******

Chapter No. 335–3–15—Synthetic Minor Operating Permits

*******

Section 335–3–15–.02 ................. General Provisions ...................... August 10, 2000 ........ 12/8/00 65 FR 76940

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–30635 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6913–9]

RIN 2060–A177

National Emission Standards for

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework

Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; amendments.

SUMMARY: On September 1, 1995, we

promulgated the National Emission

Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing

and Rework Facilities. On January 24,

2000, we proposed to amend the

standards to include a separate emission

limit for exterior primers used for large

commercial aircraft at existing facilities

that produce fully assembled, large

commercial aircraft. This action

finalizes those proposed amendments.

In addition, we are making a minor

correction to the monitoring

requirements section of the aerospace

emission standards. The amendment

helps correct regulatory language that

erroneously made reference to a list of

requirements for initial compliance

demonstrations when using incinerators

and carbon adsorbers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A–92–20

contains supporting information used in

developing the standards. The docket is

located at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460 in room M–1500,

Waterside Mall (ground floor), and may

be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jaime Paga ́n, Policy, Planning, and

Standards Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Research Triangle

Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone

number (919) 541–5340, facsimile (919)

541–0942, electronic mail address

pagan.jaime@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Categories and entities potentially

affected by this action include:

Category ....................... SICa ......... NAICS b ... Regulated entities.

Industry ........................ 3721 ......... 336411 .... Facilities which are major source of hazardous air pollutants and manufacture large

commercial aircraft.

aStandard Industrial Classification.

bNorth American Information Classification System.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that we are now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Technical Support Document

A summary of the public comments

received on the proposed amendments

and our response to those comments is

included in a memorandum in the

docket for this rule (Docket No. A–92–

20). The title of the memorandum is

‘‘Summary of Comments and Responses

for the Proposed Amendments to the

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework

Facilities NESHAP.’’

Judicial Review

Under section 307(b) of the Clean Air

Act (CAA), judicial review of these final

amendments is available only by filing

a petition for review in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit by February 6,

76942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

2001. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the

CAA, only an objection to these

amendments which was raised with

reasonable specificity during the period

for public comment can be raised during

judicial review. Moreover, under section

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements

established by today’s final action may

not be challenged separately in any civil

or criminal proceeding we bring to

enforce these requirements.

I. What Is the Background for the

Amendments?

On September 1, 1995 (60 FR 45948),

we promulgated the National Emission

Standards for Aerospace Manufacturing

and Rework Facilities (40 CFR part 63,

subpart GG) under section 112(d) of the

CAA. The rule includes standards to

control organic hazardous air pollutants

(HAP) and volatile organic compounds

(VOC) emissions from primers with an

organic HAP and VOC content level of

350 grams per liter (g/L) (2.9 pounds per

gallon (lb/gal)) or less (§ 63.745(c)(1)

and (2)). These limits applied where no

add-on control systems were used.

Alternatively, an affected source could

use a control system to reduce the

organic HAP and VOC emissions to the

atmosphere by 81 percent or greater

(§ 63.745(d)).

On January 24, 2000, we proposed to

amend the promulgated emission limits

contained in § 63.745(c)(1) and (2) for

primer operations with no add-on

control systems by proposing a separate

emission limit of 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) or

less of organic HAP and VOC for

exterior primers, as applied to large

commercial aircraft components (parts

or assemblies) or fully assembled, large

commercial aircraft at existing affected

sources that produce fully assembled,

large commercial aircraft (65 FR 3642).

Our basis for the proposed amendments

was data submitted to us by a

manufacturer of large commercial

aircraft and a reevaluation of the

original data used to establish the

MACT floor for primer application

operations (e.g., the primer containing

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA) that was

evaluated and included in the floor

determination is no longer available).

Today’s action finalizes those

amendments based on comments

received on the proposed amendments

and our response to those comments.

Five comment letters were received on

the proposed amendments. Two of the

comment letters were supportive of the

proposal and the decisions we made

with respect to the applicability,

definitions and the revised HAP and

VOC content limits. One commenter

submitted information on the potential

use of a chemical in coating

formulations to meet organic HAP and

VOC content limits. Another commenter

disagreed with our proposal by stating

that there is add-on control technology

available to help reduce emissions to

the currently required levels. Finally,

one commenter expressed the opinion

that the proposal should apply to both

original equipment manufacturers and

rework facilities, and that a definition of

large commercial aircraft components

should be added to the standards.

We carefully considered each of the

public comments and concluded that no

changes to the proposed amendments

were warranted. A complete summary

of the public comments received on the

proposed amendments and our

responses to those comments is

included in a memorandum in the

docket (Docket No A–92–20). Our

responses to the public comments are

briefly summarized here. First, with

regard to new coating formulations, we

appreciate the information and

encourage the development of new

coatings, but the coatings described by

the first commenter are still in the

testing and development stages for

aerospace applications. With regard to

the information on add-on controls

provided by the second commenter, we

did not change our decisions about the

basis for the standards; but the

standards do still provide for the option

to use add-on controls to meet the

emission limitations. Likewise, we were

not persuaded based on information

from the third commenter that the

amendments should be extended to

rework operations, especially given

supportive comments from a company

with similar operations. Lastly, we

considered adding a definition of ‘‘large

commercial aircraft components’’. The

term ‘‘large commercial aircraft’’ was

already defined in the proposal, but we

were unable to create a definition of

‘‘aircraft components’’ that is all

inclusive and that would not be subject

to change in the future. Further, we

believe that the definition of exterior

primer included in the amendments

provides a clear explanation of where

the primer is to be applied.

In addition to the amendments

described above, we are making a minor

correction to the monitoring

requirements section of the aerospace

emission standards. This revision helps

correct regulatory language that

erroneously made reference to a list of

requirements for initial compliance

demonstrations when using incinerators

and carbon adsorbers. In § 63.751,

requirements for initial compliance

demonstrations are listed in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (12). The introductory

language of paragraph (b) indicates that

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (7) apply when using carbon

adsorbers. Then, the introductory

language in paragraph (b) incorrectly

indicates that paragraphs (b)(9) through

(12) apply when using incinerators. The

revision that we are making in this

action clarifies the paragraph to

correctly state that paragraphs (b)(8)

through (12) apply when using

incinerators.

Although the revision to § 63.751

described above was not part of the

proposal in 65 FR 3642, section 553 of

the Administrative Procedure Act, 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an

agency for good cause finds that notice

and public procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. The

EPA has determined that there is good

cause for finalizing this revision without

prior proposal and opportunity for

comment because the change corrects an

inadvertent mistake in an introductory

paragraph referencing a list of

requirements for initial compliance

demonstrations. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. The EPA

finds that this constitutes good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

II. What Are the Impacts Associated

With These Amendments?

This action will not significantly

affect the estimated emissions

reductions or the control costs for the

standards promulgated for aerospace

manufacturing and rework facilities.

Only one company has been identified

as being affected by the proposed

amendments. These amendments

address significant technical concerns

regarding this aircraft manufacturer’s

ability to achieve the promulgated 350

g/L (2.9 lb/gal) HAP and VOC content

limit requirements when using exterior

primers.

Finally, the amendment that we are

making to the monitoring requirements

section of the aerospace emission

standards is a minor correction needed

to revise an inadvertent mistake in the

regulatory language of the original

regulation. As such, there are no

impacts associated with this correction.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) and the requirements of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76943

the Executive Order. The Executive

Order defines ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ as one that OMB determines is

likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect of the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues

arising out of legal mandates, the

President’s priorities, or the principles

set forth in this Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive

Order 12866, it has been determined

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ because none of the

listed criteria apply to this action.

Consequently, this action was not

submitted to OMB for review under

Executive Order 12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires the EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, the EPA may

not issue a regulation that has

federalism implications, that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs, and

that is not required by statute, unless

the Federal government provides the

funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or the EPA consults

with State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. The EPA also may not issue

a regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

If the EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA

to provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a federalism summary impact

statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include

a description of the extent of the EPA’s

prior consultation with State and local

officials, a summary of the nature of

their concerns and the Agency’s

position supporting the need to issue

the regulation, and a statement of the

extent to which the concerns of State

and local officials have been met. Also,

when the EPA transmits a draft final

rule with federalism implications to

OMB for review pursuant to Executive

Order 12866, the EPA must include a

certification from the Agency’s

Federalism Official stating that the EPA

has met the requirements of Executive

Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely

manner.

These amendments will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to these

amendments.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, the

EPA may not issue a regulation that is

not required by statute, that

significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian Tribal

governments, and that imposes

substantial direct compliance costs on

those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

cost incurred by the Tribal governments,

or if the EPA consults with those

governments. If the EPA complies by

consulting, the EPA is required to

provide to OMB, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of the

EPA’s prior consultation with

representatives of affected Tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, the EPA is

required to develop an effective process

permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian Tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

These amendments do not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this action.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any

rule that (1) OMB determines is

‘‘economically significant,’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the EPA determines the environmental

health or safety risk addressed by the

rule has a disproportionate effect on

children. If the regulatory action meets

both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the

environmental, health, or safety aspects

of the rule on children and explain why

the rule is preferable to other potentially

effective and reasonably feasible

alternatives considered by the EPA.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Executive Order has the potential to

influence the regulation. These

amendments are not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because they are

based on technology performance and

not on health or safety risks.

Furthermore, these amendments have

been determined not to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

the EPA generally must prepare a

written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final

rules with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in aggregate, or

by the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any 1 year. Before promulgating

an EPA rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires the EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least-costly, most costeffective, or least-burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the leastVerDate 11<MAY>2000 15:20 Dec 07, 2000 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\08DER1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 08DER1
76944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

costly, most cost-effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted.

Before the EPA establishes any

regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

The EPA has determined that these

amendments do not contain a Federal

mandate that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more for State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or the private sector in any 1 year. There

is no cost associated with these

amendments. Thus, today’s

amendments are not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has

determined that these amendments do

not contain regulatory requirements that

might significantly or uniquely affect

small governments because they do not

contain requirements that apply to such

governments or impose obligations

upon them. Therefore, today’s

amendments are not subject to the

requirements of section 203 of the

UMRA.

Because these amendments do not

include a Federal mandate and are

estimated to result in expenditures less

than $100 million in any 1 year by State,

local, and tribal governments, the EPA

has not prepared a budgetary impact

statement or specifically addressed the

selection of the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative. In addition, because small

governments would not be significantly

or uniquely affected by these

amendments, the EPA is not required to

develop a plan with regard to small

governments. Therefore, the

requirements of the UMRA do not apply

to this action.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as

Amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency

to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule subject to notice

and comment rulemaking requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute unless the agency

certifies that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts

of today’s amendments to the final rule

on small entities, small entity is defined

as: (1) A small business that has fewer

than 1,500 employees; (2) a small

governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.

After considering the economic

impacts of today’s proposed

amendments on small entities, it has

been determined that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This final rule will not impose

any requirements on small entities. It

affects only manufacturers of large

commercial aircraft. There are no smallentity manufacturers of large

commercial aircraft.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

These proposed amendments would

not impose any new information

collection requirements that would

result in changes to the currently

approved collection. The OMB

approved the information collection

requirements contained in the

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework

Facilities NESHAP under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB

Control Number 2060–0314.

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.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),

directs all Federal agencies to use

voluntary consensus standards instead

of government-unique standards in their

regulatory activities unless to do so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., material specifications,

test method, sampling and analytical

procedures, business practices, etc.) that

are developed or adopted by one or

more voluntary consensus standards

bodies. Examples of organizations

generally regarded as voluntary

consensus standards bodies include the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM), the National Fire

Protection Association (NFPA), and the

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE).

The NTTAA requires Federal agencies

like EPA to provide Congress, through

OMB, with explanations when an

agency decides not to use available and

applicable voluntary consensus

standards.

These amendments do not require the

use of any new technical standards,

therefore section 12(d) does not apply.

I. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the

SBREFA of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the corrections amendments, to

each House of the Congress and to the

Comptroller General of the United

States. Therefore, we will submit a

report containing these amendments

and other required information to the

United States Senate, the United States

House of Representatives, and the

Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication in the

Federal Register. A major rule cannot

take effect until 60 days after it is

published in the Federal Register. This

action does not constitute a ‘‘major

rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: December 4, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, part 63, title 40, chapter I of

the Code of Federal Regulations, is

amended as follows:

PART 63—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart GG—National Emission

Standards for Aerospace

Manufacturing and Rework Facilities

2. Section 63.742 is amended by

adding in alphabetical order definitions

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 76945

for ‘‘Exterior primer’’ and ‘‘Large

commercial aircraft’’ to read as follows:

§ 63.742 Definitions.

* * * * *

Exterior primer means the first layer

and any subsequent layers of identically

formulated coating applied to the

exterior surface of an aerospace vehicle

or component where the component is

used on the exterior of the aerospace

vehicle. Exterior primers are typically

used for corrosion prevention,

protection from the environment,

functional fluid resistance, and

adhesion of subsequent exterior

topcoats. Coatings that are defined as

specialty coatings are not included

under this definition.

* * * * *

Large commercial aircraft means an

aircraft of more than 110,000 pounds,

maximum certified take-off weight

manufactured for non-military use.

* * * * *

3. Section 63.745 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read

as follows:

§ 63.745 Standards: Primer and topcoat

application operations.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) Organic HAP emissions from

primers shall be limited to an organic

HAP content level of no more than: 540

g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer (less water), as

applied, for general aviation rework

facilities; or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of

exterior primer (less water), as applied,

to large commercial aircraft components

(parts or assemblies) or fully assembled,

large commercial aircraft at existing

affected sources that produce fully

assembled, large commercial aircraft; or

350 g/L (2.9 lb/gal) of primer (less

water), as applied.

(2) VOC emissions from primers shall

be limited to a VOC content level of no

more than: 540 g/L (4.5 lb/gal) of primer

(less water and exempt solvents), as

applied, for general aviation rework

facilities; or 650 g/L (5.4 lb/gal) of

exterior primer (less water and exempt

solvents), as applied, to large

commercial aircraft components (parts

or assemblies) or fully assembled, large

commercial aircraft at existing affected

sources that produce fully assembled,

large commercial aircraft; or 350 g/L (2.9

lb/gal) of primer (less water and exempt

solvents), as applied.

* * * * *

4. Section 63.751 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) introductory text

to read as follows:

§ 63.751 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(b) Incinerators and carbon adsorbersinitial compliance demonstrations. Each

owner or operator subject to the

requirements in this subpart must

demonstrate initial compliance with the

requirements of §§ 63.745(d), 63.746(c),

and 63.747(d) of this subpart. Each

owner or operator using a carbon

adsorber to comply with the

requirements in this subpart shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b)(1) through (7) of this

section. Each owner or operator using

an incinerator to comply with the

requirements in this subpart shall

comply with the requirements specified

in paragraphs (b)(8) through (12) of this

section.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31331 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6913–2]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final deletion of the

University of Minnesota Rosemount

Research Center Superfund Site from

the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: EPA Region 5 announces the

deletion of the University of Minnesota

Rosemount Research Center Site (Site)

from the National Priorities List (NPL)

and requests public comment on this

action. The NPL constitutes appendix B

of 40 CFR Part 300 which is the

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Pollution Continency Plan (NCP), which

EPA promulgated pursuant to Section

105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation

and Liability Act of 1980, as amended,

(CERCLA). EPA and the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) have

determined that the Site poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, further

remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA

are not appropriate.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ action will be

effective February 6, 2001 unless EPA

receives dissenting comments by

January 8, 2001. If written dissenting

comments are received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register informing the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Gladys Beard, Associate Remedial

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Superfund Division,

U.S. EPA, Region 5, 77 W. Jackson

Blvd., (SR–6J), Chicago, IL 60604.

Requests for comprehensive information

on this Site is available through the

public docket which is available for

viewing at the Site Information

Repository at the following location:

The Minnesota Pollution Control

Agency, Administrative Records, 520

Lafayette Road North, Saint Paul,

Minnesota 55155–4184.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gladys Beard (SR–6J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

W. Jackson, Chicago, IL, (312) 886–7253,

FAX (312) 886–4071, e-mail

beard.gladys@epa.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion

V. Action

I. Introduction

EPA Region 5 announces the deletion

of the releases from the University of

Minnesota Rosemont Research Center

Site, Rosemount, Dakota County,

Minnesota, from the National Priorities

List (NPL), appendix B of the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part

300. EPA identifies sites that appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

maintains the NPL as the list of these

sites. EPA and the State of Minnesota

have determined that the remedial

action for the Site has been successfully

executed. EPA will accept comments on

this notice thirty days after publication

of this notice in the Federal Register.

Section II of this action explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses the procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses the history of the University

of Minnesota Site and explains how the

Site meets the deletion criteria. Section

V states EPA’s action to delete the

releases of the Site from the NPL unless

dissenting comments are received

during the comment period.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP

provides that Sites may be deleted from,

or recategorized on the NPL where no

further response is appropriate. In

making a determination to delete a

release from the NPL, EPA shall

consider, in consultation with the state,