24804 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 / Notices

enforcement case and thus, subject to

the exceptions set forth here, no special

approvals are required. The special

approvals apply to both administrative

and judicial enforcement actions as

follows:

a. Regions in which a SEP is proposed

for implementation shall be given the

opportunity to review and comment on

the proposed SEP.

b. In all cases in which a project may

not fully comply with the provisions of

this Policy (e.g., see footnote 1), the SEP

must be approved by the EPA Assistant

Administrator for Enforcement and

Compliance Assurance. If a project does

not fully comply with all of the legal

guidelines in this Policy, the request for

approval must set forth a legal analysis

supporting the conclusion that the

project is within EPA’s legal authority

and is not otherwise inconsistent with

law.

c. In all cases in which a SEP would

involve activities outside the United

States, the SEP must be approved in

advance by the Assistant Administrator

and, for judicial cases only, the

Assistant Attorney General for the

Environment and Natural Resources

Division of the Department of Justice.

d. In all cases in which an

environmental compliance promotion

project (section D.6) or a project in the

‘‘other’’ category (section D.8) is

contemplated, the project must be

approved in advance by the appropriate

office in OECA, unless otherwise

delegated.

2. Documentation and Confidentiality

In each case in which a SEP is

included as part of a settlement, an

explanation of the SEP with supporting

materials (including the PROJECT

model printout, where applicable) must

be included as part of the case file. The

explanation of the SEP should explain

how the five steps set forth in Section

A.3 above have been used to evaluate

the project and include a description of

the expected benefits associated with

the SEP. The explanation must include

a description by the enforcement

attorney of how nexus and the other

legal guidelines are satisfied.

Documentation and explanations of a

particular SEP may constitute

confidential settlement information that

is exempt from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act, is outside

the scope of discovery, and is protected

by various privileges, including the

attorney-client privilege and the

attorney work-product privilege. While

individual Agency evaluations of

proposed SEPs are confidential,

privileged documents, this Policy is a

public document and may be released to

anyone upon request.

This Policy is primarily for the use of

U.S. EPA enforcement personnel in

settling cases. EPA reserves the right to

change this Policy at any time, without

prior notice, or to act at variance to this

Policy. This Policy does not create any

rights, duties, or obligations, implied or

otherwise, in any third parties.

ATTACHMENT.—SEP PENALTY CALCULATION WORKSHEET

[This worksheet should be used pursuant to section E of the Policy. Specific Applications of this Worksheet in a Case Are Privileged, Confidential

Documents]

Step Amount

STEP 1: CALCULATION OF SETTLEMENT AMOUNT WITHOUT A SEP

1.a. BENEFIT: The applicable penalty policy is used to calculate the economic benefit of noncompliance ........................................... $

1.b. GRAVITY: The applicable penalty policy is used to calculate the gravity component of the penalty; this is gravity after all adjustments in the applicable policy.$

1.c SETTLEMENT AMOUNT without a SEP: Sum of step 1.a plus 1.b .................................................................................................. $

STEP 2: CALCULATION OF THE MINIMUM PENALTY AMOUNT WITH A SEP

2.a 10% of GRAVITY: Multiply amount in step 1.b by 0.10 ...................................................................................................................... $

2.b BENEFIT PLUS 10% of GRAVITY: Sum of step 1.a plus step 2.a .................................................................................................... $

2.c. 25% of GRAVITY: Multiply amount in step 1.b by 0.25 ..................................................................................................................... $

2.d MINIMUM PENALTY AMOUNT: Select greater of step 2.c or step 2.b ............................................................................................. $

STEP 3: CALCULATION OF THE SEP COST USING PROJECT MODEL ........................................................................................... $

STEP 4: CALCULATION OF MITIGATION PERCENTAGE AND MITIGATION AMOUNT

4.a. SEP Cost Mitigation Percentage. Evaluate the project pursuant to the 6 mitigation factors in the Policy. Mitigation percentage

should not exceed 80% unless one of the exceptions applies.

Percent

4.b. SEP Mitigation Amount. Multiply step 3 by step 4.a .......................................................................................................................... $

STEP 5: CALCULATION OF THE FINAL SETTLEMENT PENALTY

5.a Subtract step 4.b from step 1.c ........................................................................................................................................................... $

5.b. Final Settlement Penalty: Select greater of step 2.d or step 5.a ....................................................................................................... $

[FR Doc. 98–11881 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6007–9]

Selections for Total Maximum Daily

Load Development for the State of

West Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability for public

comment of the selection of two

waterbodies for Total Maximum Daily

Load (TMDL) development in the state

of West Virginia.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Consent

Decree filed with the court resolving a

citizen suit filed against EPA, Ohio

Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc,

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy et

al. v. Browner et al., (C.A. No. 2:95–

5029 and 2:96–0091 (S.D.WV), EPA

must establish TMDLs for seven water

quality limited segments (‘‘WQLS’’) of

waterbodies in West Virginia by

September 30, 1998, if the State of West

Virginia fails to establish these TMDLs

itself. The Consent Decree, in Paragraph

18, contemplates that, in the first

instance, West Virginia will select the

waterbodies for TMDL development, but

that EPA may select alternative

waterbodies, if EPA is establishing the

TMDLs in cooperation with West

Virginia.

West Virginia, with EPA’s

concurrence, is in the process of

announcing the selection of the

following five WQLS for TMDL

development for 1998: Lost River,

Hurricane Lake, Mountwood Park Lake,

Tomlinson Run Lake, and Burches Run

Lake. Pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the

Consent Decree, EPA today is providing

notice that EPA has selected two

additional waterbodies for TMDL
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 86 /Tuesday, May 5, 1998 / Notices 24805

development in West Virginia. EPA has

selected Ten Mile Creek of the

Buckhannon River and the mainstem of

the Buckhannon River in Upshur

County, West Virginia, in lieu of the

Cheat River and Paint Creek, which

were the selections proposed by West

Virginia.

This notice is intended to inform

interested persons of EPA’s intention to

develop TMDLs for Ten Mile Creek and

Buckhannon River, in lieu of the Cheat

River and Paint Creek. Interested

persons may provide comment on this

selection to EPA. Comments should be

received no later than 30 days after the

date of this Notice and should be sent

to the person listed in the following

FOR INFORMATION CONTACT

section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carol Ann Davis, Office of Watersheds

(3WP12),USEPA Region III, 841

Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA

19107, at (215) 566–5738, or by email at

davis.carolann@epamail.epa.gov.

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Joseph Piotrowski,

Acting Director, Water Protection Division,

EPA Region III.

[FR Doc. 98–11880 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6008–4]

Notice of Transfer of Jurisdiction of

National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) General

Permit in Louisiana to Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality

(LDEQ) and in Oklahoma to Oklahoma

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Transfer of Jurisdiction of

NPDES General Permits.

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 proposed and

solicited comments on NPDES General

Permits for Discharges Resulting From

Implementing Corrective Action Plans

for Cleanup of Petroleum UST Systems

in Louisiana (LAG830000) and in

Oklahoma (OKG830000) at 61 FR 37894

(July 22, 1996). Those permits were

subsequently issued November 14, 1997

(62 FR 61116). Today, EPA Region 6

gives notice that jurisdiction over

NPDES General Permit No. LAG830000

is being transferred to LDEQ and

jurisdiction over NPDES General Permit

No. OKG830000 is being transferred to

ODEQ.

DATES: The effective date of transfer of

jurisdiction of these permits is May 5,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Wilma Turner, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7516.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA

Region 6 and LDEQ have a

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA),

with effective date of August 27, 1996,

establishing policies, responsibilities

and procedures defining the manner in

which the NPDES will be administered

by the State of Louisiana through the

LDEQ as the Louisiana Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (LPDES)

program. Section II of this MOA

(Jurisdiction over Permits) states that

EPA shall retain permit decision-making

authority over permits which are

currently (as of the MOA’s effective

date) at EPA’s public notice stage until

final permit issuance. EPA will then

transfer jurisdiction of those permits to

LDEQ. EPA has a similar MOA with

ODEQ, with an effective date of

November 19, 1996, defining the

manner in which the NPDES will be

administered by the State of Oklahoma

through the ODEQ as the Oklahoma

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(OPDES).

These two NPDES general permits

were at the public notice stage on the

effective dates of the Louisiana and

Oklahoma MOA’s; therefore, EPA

retained decision-making authority over

those permits and issued the final

decision on the permits. EPA is now

transferring jurisdiction of those permits

to the respective State agencies.

After the effective date of this transfer

of jurisdiction, all subsequent

notifications of intent to be covered,

discharge monitoring reports, and other

reports required by these two permits

shall no longer be sent to EPA Region

6, but shall be sent, for LAG830000, to:

Assistant Secretary for Water, Water

Pollution Control Division, Louisiana

Department of Environmental Quality,

P.O. Box 82215, Baton Rouge, LA

70884–2215

and, for OKG830000, to:

Director, Oklahoma Department of

Environmental Quality, 1000 NE 10th

Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73117–

1212,

William B. Hathaway,

Director, Water Quality Protection Division

EPA Region 6.

[FR Doc. 98–11755 Filed 5–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Public Information Collection(s)

Approved by Office of Management

and Budget

April 29, 1998.

The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC) has received Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

approval for the following public

information collection(s) pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44

U.S.C. 3501–3520. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of

law, no person shall be subject to any

penalty for failing to comply with a

collection of information subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that

does not display a valid control number.

Questions concerning the OMB control

numbers and expiration dates should be

directed to Jerry Cowden, Federal

Communications Commission, (202)

418–0447.

Federal Communications Commission.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0562.

Expiration Date: 4/30/2001.

Title: Section 76.916 Petition for

recertification.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Estimated annual burden: 100 hours;

10 hours per response; 10 respondents.

Description: Section 76.916 provides

that a franchising authority wishing to

assume jurisdiction to regulate basic

service and associated equipment rates

after its request for certification has

been denied or revoked may file a

petition for recertification with the

Commission. The petition must be

served on the cable operator and on any

interested party that participated in the

proceeding denying or revoking the

original certification.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0570.

Expiration Date: 4/30/2001.

Title: Section 76.982 Continuation of

rate agreements.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Estimated annual burden: 13 hours;

0.5 hour per response; 25 respondents.

Description: Section 76.982 provides

that franchise authorities who were

regulating basic cable rates pursuant to

a rate agreement executed before July 1,

1990, may continue to regulate rates

during the remainder of the agreement.

Franchise authorities must notify the

Commission of their intentions to

continue regulating rates under the rate

agreement.

OMB Control No.: 3060–0609.

Expiration Date: 4/30/2001.