Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Notices 18403

Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs, Office of Management and

Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for

EPA, 725 17th Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20503.

Dated: April 9, 1998.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 98–10008 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[AMS–FRL–5997–1]

California State Motor Vehicle

Pollution Control Standards; Waiver of

Federal Preemption—Notice of Waiver

Decision and Within the Scope

Determination; Notice of Correction

and Republication and Opportunity for

Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice Regarding Waiver of

Federal Preemption and Within the

Scope Determination and Opportunity

for Public Hearing.

SUMMARY: On February 6, 1998, EPA

published a Notice Regarding Waiver of

Federal Preemption and Within the

Scope Determination granting California

a waiver of Federal preemption for

certain motor vehicle emission

standards and determining that certain

amendments to its vehicle emission

warranty statute and regulations were

within the scope of previous waivers of

Federal preemption. (63 FR 6173,

February 6, 1998). Because of

administrative error, this Notice was

published before the Decision

Document was signed by the Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation,

and thus the effective dates listed in the

February 6 notice are incorrect. The

Decision Document has now been

signed, and EPA is announcing that

decision in this Federal Register notice.

EPA is granting California a waiver of

Federal preemption pursuant to section

209(b) of the Clean Air Act, as amended,

42 U.S.C. 7543(b) (Act), beginning in the

1998 model year to enforce amendments

to its motor vehicle pollution control

program which set new standards, and

certification and test procedures for

newly-established categories of ‘‘LowEmission’’ medium-duty vehicles

(MDVs). Additionally, EPA today has

determined that California’s

amendments to its warranty statute and

regulations for the 1994 and later model

years for various motor vehicles are

within the scope of previous waivers of

Federal preemption granted pursuant to

section 209(b) of the Act to adopt and

enforce its revised emission standards

and accompanying enforcement

procedures for 1979 and later model

year vehicles and engines. EPA received

a request for a hearing on our within the

scope determination contained in the

February 6 publication and will

consider that request as applying to

today’s notice as well. Although EPA is

not required by the Act to offer a

hearing on within the scope

determinations, after receiving this

hearing request, EPA has decided to

offer the opportunity for a hearing

regarding whether EPA should

reconsider its determination.

DATES: EPA has tentatively scheduled a

public hearing for May 8, 1998. Any

person who wishes to testify on the

record at the hearing must notify EPA in

writing by April 24, 1998 that he or she

will attend the hearing to present oral

testimony regarding EPA’s

determination. If EPA receives one or

more requests to testify, this hearing

will be held. If EPA does not receive any

requests to testify, this hearing will be

canceled. Anyone who plans to attend

the hearing should call Robert M. Doyle

at (202) 564–9258 to determine if this

hearing will be held. Regardless of

whether or not a hearing is held, any

party may submit written comments

regarding EPA’s determination by or

before June 5, 1998.

ADDRESSES: If EPA receives one or more

requests to testify, EPA will hold the

May 8, 1998 public hearing announced

above at EPA-Judiciary Square Building,

first floor conference room, 501 3rd

Street, NW., Washington, D.C. Any

requests to testify at the public hearing,

and/or any comments on the within the

scope findings described above should

be filed with Mr. Robert F. Montgomery,

Manager, Engine Compliance Programs

Group, Engine Programs and

Compliance Division (6403J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460.

The Agency’s decisions as well as all

documents relied upon in reaching

these decisions, including those

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB), are available

for public inspection in the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center during the working hours of 8:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102),

Room M–1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. All

documents submitted in the Lowemission MDV waiver request can be

found in Docket A–91–71; all

documents submitted in the within the

scope request for the warranty

amendments, including the request for a

hearing recently received, can be found

in Docket A–91–16. Copies of the

Decision Document (which discusses

both the waiver and the within the

scope determination) can be obtained

from EPA’s Engine Programs and

Compliance Division by contacting

Robert M. Doyle, as noted below, or can

be accessed on the EPA Office of Mobile

Sources Internet Home Page, also noted

below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Doyle, Attorney/Advisor,

Engine Programs and Compliance

Division (6403J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:

(202) 564–9258, FAX:(202) 565–2057, EMail:

Doyle.Robert@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Electronic Copies of

Documents

Electronic copies of this Notice and

the accompanying Decision Document

are available via the Internet on the

Office of Mobile Sources (OMS) Home

page (http://www.epa.gov/OMSWWW/).

Users can find these documents by

accessing the OMS Home Page and

looking at the path entitled

‘‘Regulations.’’ This service is free of

charge, except for any cost you already

incur for Internet connectivity. The

electronic Federal Register version of

the Notice is made available on the day

of publication on the primary Web site

(http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/

EPA–AIR/).

Please note that due to differences

between the software used to develop

the documents and the software into

which the documents may be

downloaded, changes in format, page

length, etc., may occur.

II. Procedures for Public Participation

Any party desiring to make an oral

statement on the record at the

tentatively scheduled public hearing

should submit ten (10) copies, if

feasible, of the proposed testimony and

other relevant material to Mr. Robert F.

Montgomery at the address listed above

not later than May 1, 1998. In addition,

the party should submit 15 copies, if

feasible, of the planned statement to the

presiding officer at the time of the

hearing.

In recognition that a public hearing is

designed to give interested parties an

opportunity to participate in this

proceeding, there are no adverse parties

as such. Statements by participants will

not be subject to cross-examination by
18404 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Notices

1The waiver request EPA grants today, which

pertains to low-emission MDVs, is part of a

comprehensive waiver request from California for

its LEV program, which includes both light-duty

vehicles (LDVs) such as passenger cars and lightduty trucks, and MDVs which are typically large

trucks and other vehicles up to 14,000 lbs Gross

Vehicle Weight Rating. On January 13, 1993 (58 FR

4166) EPA granted a waiver for the low-emission

LDV component of California’s program, and

deferred action on the MDV component of the

program (the subject of today’s waiver). EPA chose

to defer this action because at the time of the LEV

waiver grant, an earlier waiver concerning MDVs

(Docket A–91–55) was pending. This earlier request

involved amendments to the California program

which established new emission standards for

MDVs in Model Year 1995 and beyond, and new

accompanying certification and compliance test

procedures and durability requirements. Because

the low-emission MDV standards are amendments

to the MDV standards considered in the request of

Docket A–91–55, EPA needed to decide the earlier

request before action on the low-emission MDV

standards could be taken. On September 16, 1994

(announced in 59 FR 48625, September 22, 1994),

EPA granted a waiver of Federal preemption to

California’s 1995 and beyond MDV standards.

other participants without special

approval by the presiding officer. The

presiding officer is authorized to strike

from the record statements which he or

she deems irrelevant or repetitious or to

impose reasonable limits on the

duration of the statement of any

participant.

If a hearing is held, the Agency will

make a verbatim record of the

proceedings. Interested parties may

arrange with the reporter at the hearing

to obtain a copy of the transcript at their

own expense. Regardless of whether a

hearing is held, EPA will keep the

record open until June 5, 1998. Upon

expiration of the comment period, EPA

will make a final determination on the

CARB within the scope request, based

on the record of the public hearing (if

any), relevant written submissions, and

other information deemed pertinent.

Persons with comments containing

proprietary information must

distinguish such information from other

comments to the greatest extent possible

and label it as ‘‘Confidential Business

Information’’ (CBI). If a person making

comments wants EPA to base its

decision in part on a submission labeled

as CBI, then a nonconfidential version

of the document which summarizes the

key data or information should be

submitted for the public docket. To

ensure that CBI is not inadvertently

placed in the docket, submissions

containing such information should be

sent directly to the contact person listed

above, and not to the public docket.

Information covered by a claim of

confidentiality will be disclosed by EPA

only to the extent allowed and by the

procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

If no claim of confidentiality

accompanies the submission when it is

received by EPA, it made be made

available to the public without further

notice to the person making comments.

III. Low-Emission MDV Standards

Waiver Request

I have decided to grant California a

waiver of Federal preemption pursuant

to section 209(b) of the Act for

amendments to its motor vehicle

pollution control program which will

(1) establish three new categories of

low-emission MDVs based on levels of

exhaust emission standards; ‘‘LowEmission Vehicle’’ (LEV), ‘‘Ultra LowEmission Vehicle’’ (ULEV), and ‘‘ZeroEmission Vehicle’’ (ZEV); (2) require

manufacturers to certify certain

minimum percentages of LEV–MDVs

and ULEV–MDVs beginning in the 1998

Model Year, reaching a maximum

percentage requirement in Model Year

2003, and (3) establish production credit

banking and trading provisions to offer

flexibility to manufacturers unable to

meet the minimum percentages.1 A

comprehensive description of the

California low-emission standards and

accompanying program can be found in

the Decision Document for this waiver

and in materials submitted to the Docket

by California and other parties.

Section 209(b) of the Act provides

that, if certain criteria are met, the

Administrator shall waive Federal

preemption for California to enforce

new motor vehicle emission standards

and accompanying enforcement

procedures. The criteria include

consideration of whether California

arbitrarily and capriciously determined

that its standards are, in the aggregate,

at least as protective of public health

and welfare as the applicable Federal

standards; whether California needs

State standards to meet compelling and

extraordinary conditions; and whether

California’s amendments are consistent

with section 202(a) of the Act.

CARB determined that these

standards and accompanying

enforcement procedures do not cause

California’s standards, in the aggregate,

to be less protective of public health and

welfare than the applicable Federal

standards. Information presented to me

by parties opposing California’s waiver

request did not demonstrate that

California arbitrarily or capriciously

reached this protectiveness

determination. Therefore, I cannot find

California’s determination to be

arbitrary or capricious.

CARB has continually demonstrated

the existence of compelling and

extraordinary conditions justifying the

need for its own motor vehicle pollution

control program, which includes the

subject standards and procedures. No

information has been submitted to

demonstrate that California no longer

has a compelling and extraordinary

need for its own program. Therefore, I

agree that California continues to have

compelling and extraordinary

conditions which require its own

program, and, thus, I cannot deny the

waiver on the basis of the lack of

compelling and extraordinary

conditions.

CARB has submitted information

demonstrating that the requirements of

its emission standards and test

procedures are technologically feasible

and present no inconsistency with

Federal requirements and are, therefore,

consistent with section 202(a) of the

Act. Information presented to me by

parties opposing California’s waiver

request did not satisfy the burden of

persuading EPA that the standards are

not technologically feasible within the

available lead time, considering costs.

Thus, I cannot find that California’s

amendments will be inconsistent with

section 202(a) of the Act. Accordingly,

I hereby grant the waiver requested by

California.

My decision will affect not only

persons in California but also the

manufacturers outside the State who

must comply with California’s

requirements in order to produce motor

vehicles for sale in California. For this

reason, I hereby determine and find that

this is a final action of national

applicability.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

judicial review of this final action may

be sought only in the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit. Petitions for review

must be filed by June 15, 1998. Under

section 307(b)(2) of the Act, judicial

review of this final action may not be

obtained in subsequent enforcement

proceedings.

As with past waiver decisions, this

action is not a rule as defined by

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is

exempt from review by the Office of

Management and Budget as required for

rules and regulations by Executive

Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Therefore, EPA has

not prepared a supporting regulatory

flexibility analysis addressing the

impact of this action on small business

entities.

Finally, the Administrator has

delegated the authority to make

determinations regarding waivers of

Federal preemption under section

209(b) of the Act to the Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Notices 18405

2Letter from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer,

CARB, to William K. Reilly, Administrator, EPA,

dated February 4, 1991, at 2 (hereinafter ‘‘CARB

letter’’).

3CARB letter at 5.

4The CAAA were signed into law on November

15, 1990. New certification and new in-use tailpipe

emission standards for all light-duty vehicles and

light-duty trucks, commonly referred to as Tier 1

standards, were prescribed in section 203 of the

Amendments, which added new sections 202(g)

and 202(h) to the Clean Air Act (CAA). On June 5,

1991 EPA published the Final Rule implementing

the Tier 1 standards in the Federal Register at 56

FR 25724. In addition, section 202(j) of the Act

requires promulgation of a Cold CO standard. 58 FR

9468 (July 19, 1993).

In addition, the Federal warranty requirements

also changed beginning in the 1995 model year. The

CAAA significantly modified the Federal light-duty

requirements. Prior to the amendments the period

of warranty coverage was generally 5 years/50,000

miles. The CAAA, beginning in the 1995 model

year, shorten the basic defects warranty period to

2 years/24,000 miles but extend it to eight years/

80,000 miles in the case of catalytic converters,

electronic emissions control units, onboard

diagnostic (OBD) devices, and other pollution

control devices that meet certain criteria and are

designated by the Administrator as a ‘‘specified

major emission control component.’’ CAA Section

207(i).

5California Proposed Regulations for Low

Emission Vehicle Standards and Clean Fuels

(August 13, 1990). Letter from James D. Boyd,

Executive Officer, CARB, to William K. Reilly,

Administrator, EPA, dated October 4, 1991.

6Letter from James D. Boyd, Executive Officer,

CARB, to William K. Reilly, Administrator, EPA,

dated October 4, 1991, p. 10, footnote 14.

7 57 FR 38502 (August 25, 1992).

IV. Warranty Amendments Within the

Scope Request

I have determined that California’s

amendments to its warranty statute and

regulations as applied in the 1994

model year and beyond are within the

scope of previous waivers of Federal

preemption granted pursuant to section

209(b) of the Act. The basis for this

determination is described in detail in

the Decision Document, which can be

found in the docket for this action. The

substantive amendments to the emission

warranty requirements which are

applicable under California state law to

1990 and subsequent model year

passenger cars, light duty trucks and

medium-duty vehicles require

manufacturers to provide the following:

(1) An emission-related ‘‘defects

warranty’’ for three years or 50,000

miles. The manufacturer must warrant

that the vehicle is free from defects in

materials and workmanship which

cause the failure of a warranted part to

be identical in all material respects to

the part described in the application for

certification. The emission-related parts

that are defective within the period of

warranty coverage must be repaired or

replaced by the manufacturer at no cost

to the vehicle owner. Thus it need not

be shown that the defect causes the

vehicle to exceed the applicable

emission standards, in order to obtain

such replacement or repair by the

manufacturer without charge to the

owner.

(2) A seven year or 70,000 mile

‘‘extended defects warranty’’ for

emission-related parts costing more

than $300 to replace. Manufacturers are

required to identify those emissionrelated components on the existing

Emissions Warranty Parts List that cost

the consumer over $300 to replace as of

the time of certification and to warranty

those for a period of seven years/70,000

miles.

(3) A ‘‘performance warranty’’ for

three years or 50,000 miles, whichever

first occurs. Manufacturers must

warrant the vehicle will pass an

inspection and maintenance (SMOG

CHECK) test. If a vehicle fails the SMOG

CHECK test the manufacturer will be

liable for the cost of the part, labor,

diagnosis, and the SMOG CHECK retest

to ensure the vehicle passes. The

manufacturer would not be liable for the

failure if it demonstrates that the failure

was directly caused by abuse, neglect, or

improper maintenance or repair.

(4) A prescribed Introductory

Statement for owners. Manufacturers of

all 1991 and subsequent model vehicles

produced after January 24, 1991 must

include in their warranty booklet a

specified, standardized statement that

explains in layman’s terms the vehicle

owner’s rights and responsibilities

regarding the emission control system

warranty. The manufacturer’s detailed

warranty statement must follow this

specified statement.

(5) Common Nomenclature. All

emission-related service and

certification documents, printed or

updated by a manufacturer starting with

the 1993 model year, must conform to

the nomenclature and abbreviations in

SAE publication J1930 ‘‘Diagnostic

Acronyms, Terms, and Definitions for

Electrical/Electronic Systems’’.

(6) The emission warranty

requirements for vehicles and engines

other than 1990 and subsequent model

passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and

medium-duty vehicles will be

continued without substantial change.

These requirements cover pre-1990 and

subsequent model year motorcycles and

heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

In a February 4, 1991 letter to EPA,

CARB notified EPA of the abovedescribed amendments to its warranty

regulations affecting 1990 model year

and later vehicles, and requested that

EPA confirm that these amendments to

its warranty statute and regulations, and

new regulations requiring the use of

common nomenclature in certification

and in-use documentation are within

the scope of existing waivers of Federal

preemption.2 The Executive Officer

stated that ‘‘[t]he regulations do not

undermine the Board’s prior

determination that the state standards

are, in the aggregate, at least as

protective of public health and welfare

as applicable Federal standards.’’ 3 This

statement, however, referred to a finding

made by the Board before the passage of

the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990 (CAAA), which required that

EPA promulgate new, more stringent

Federal tailpipe emission standards for

light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks

beginning in the 1994 model year.4

In its February 1991 request, CARB

compared the California standards and

the Federal standards as they stood

prior to the CAAA; the Board did not

consider the protectiveness of the

California standards as compared to the

new standards made applicable by the

CAAA. Consequently, California, at the

time of its request had not made an

initial determination, that its standards,

in the aggregate, are as protective of

public health and welfare as comparable

Federal standards (including Tier 1)

which apply in the 1994 and later

model years.

On October 4, 1991, California

requested a waiver of Federal

preemption for its LEV program

standards, which under California state

law are applicable to 1994 and later

model year vehicles (which also is when

the phase-in of the new Federal Tier 1

standards begins).5 In this request,

California made a protectiveness finding

with regard to the California standards

as applicable to the 1994 and later

model years compared to the applicable

Federal standards (including Tier 1) as

a basis for the waiver request addressing

LEV standards. Because California had

not made an initial determination that

its standards, in the aggregate, are as

protective of public health and welfare

as comparable Federal standards

(including Tier 1) which apply in the

1994 and later model years in the earlier

(February 1991) warranty request, CARB

acknowledged, in its October 1991

request for a waiver for its LEV

standards, the possibility that EPA may

address the warranty amendments that

were part of the February 1991 request

as they apply only through the 1993

model year.6

EPA announced, on August 14, 1992,

its determination that California’s

amendments to its warranty program

were within the scope of previous

waivers only through the 1993 model

year.7 EPA also stated that, provided

California was granted a waiver of
18406 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / Notices

8 58 FR 4166 (January 13, 1993).

9 59 FR 48625 (September 22, 1994).

10 37 FR 14831 (July 25, 1972); 44 FR 61096

(October 23, 1979); 51 FR 12391 (March 26, 1986);

51 FR 15961 (April 22, 1986).

11 Id.

Federal preemption for its LEV

standards, the warranty regulations

which were the subject of CARB’s

request for a within-the-scope

determination would continue to be

within the scope of existing waivers

beyond the 1993 model year so long as

they (1) do not undermine California’s

determination that its standards, in the

aggregate, are as protective of public

health and welfare as comparable

Federal standards (2) do not affect the

consistency of California’s requirements

with section 202(a) of the Act, and (3)

raise no new issues affecting EPA’s

previous waiver determinations.

On January 7, 1993, EPA granted a

waiver of Federal preemption for the

low-emission LDV component of

California’s LEV program.8 EPA also has

waived Federal preemption for

California’s standards applicable to

1995 and later model year MDVs.9 In

today’s decision, EPA waives

preemption for California’s MDV

standards for 1998 and later model year

vehicle and engines which are part of

the LEV Program. EPA has previously

determined that California’s earlier

emission warranty regulations were

within the scope of previous waivers.10

Consistent with these previous

determinations, EPA now has

determined that emission warranty

regulations, which are the subject of

CARB’s February 4, 1991 letter, as

applied through the 1994 model year

and beyond to passenger cars, light-duty

trucks and medium-duty vehicles and

engines, are within the scope of earlier

waivers granted for standards.

With regard to the 1994 and later

model years, these amendments do not

undermine California’s determination

that its standards, in the aggregate are as

protective of public health and welfare

as comparable Federal standards, are

not inconsistent with section 202(a) of

the Act, and raise no new issues

affecting the EPA’s previous waiver

determination. Thus these amendments

are within the scope of previous waivers

determinations.11 A full explanation of

EPA’s decision is contained in a

determination document which may be

obtained from EPA as noted above.

My decision will affect not only

persons in California but also the

manufacturers outside the State who

must comply with California’s

requirements in order to produce motor

vehicles for sale in California. For this

reason, I hereby determine and find that

this is a final action of national

applicability.

As with past waiver decisions, this

action is not a rule as defined by

Executive Order 12866. Therefore, it is

exempt from review by the Office of

Management and Budget as required for

rules and regulations by Executive

Order 12866.

In addition, this action is not a rule

as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 601(2). Therefore, EPA

has not prepared a supporting

regulatory flexibility analysis addressing

the impact of this action on small

business entities.

Finally, the Administrator has

delegated the authority to make

determinations regarding waivers of

Federal preemption under section

209(b) of the Act to the Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation.

Dated: April 6, 1998.

Richard D. Wilson,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 98–10010 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5996–3]

Notice of Proposed Assessment of

Clean Water Act Class I Administrative

Penalty to Campbell Soup Company

and opportunity to comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed

administrative penalty assessment and

opportunity to comment.

SUMMARY: EPA is providing notice of

proposed administrative penalty

assessment for alleged violations of the

Clean Water Act. EPA is also providing

notice of opportunity to comment on the

proposed assessment.

Under 33 U.S.C. 1319(g), EPA is

authorized to issue orders assessing

civil penalties for various violations of

the Act. EPA may issue these orders

after the commencement of either a

Class I or Class II penalty proceeding.

EPA provides public notice of the

proposed assessments pursuant to 33

U.S.C. 1319(g)(4)(a).

Class I proceedings are conducted

under EPA’s proposed Consolidated

Rules of Practice Governing the

Administrative Assessment of Civil

Penalties and the Revocation and

Suspension of Permits, 40 CFR Part 22.

The procedures through which the

public may submit written comment on

a proposed Class I order or participate

in a Class I proceeding, and the

Procedures by which a Respondent may

request a hearing, are set forth in the

Consolidated Rules. The deadline for

submitting public comment on a

proposed Class I order is thirty days

after publication of this notice.

On the date identified below, EPA

commenced the following Class I

proceeding for the assessment of

penalties:

In the Matter of Campbell Soup Company,

located at 6200 Franklin Boulevard,

Sacramento, California 95824; EPA Docket

No. CWA–IX–FY98–01; filed on April 2,

1998, with Ms. Danielle Carr, Regional

Hearing Clerk, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California

94105, (415) 744–1391; proposed penalty of

$10,445 for failure to submit self-monitoring

reports with toxic organics results in 1995,

1996 and part of 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Persons

wishing to receive a copy of EPA’s

Consolidated Rules, review of the

complaint or other documents filed in

this proceeding, comment upon a

proposed assessment, or otherwise

participate in the proceeding should

contact the Regional Hearing Clerk

identified above. The administrative

record for this proceeding is located in

the EPA Regional Office identified

above, and the file will be open for

public inspection during normal

business hours. All information

submitted by the respondent is available

as part of the administrative record,

subject to provisions of law restricting

public disclosure of confidential

information. In order to provide

opportunity for public comment, EPA

will issue no final order assessing a

penalty in these proceedings prior to

thirty (30) days after the date of

publication of this notice.

Dated: August 6, 1998.

Alexis Strauss,

Acting Director, Water Division, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–10004 Filed 4–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5997–3]

Underground Injection Control

Program; Hazardous Waste Land

Disposal Restrictions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of approval of

application for a case-by-case extension