Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices 25479

minority and low-income communities

with the goal of achieving

environmental justice. This tentative

determination to approve the

Community’s requests for use of an

alternative landfill standard is

consistent with EO 12898. By allowing

the Community to use the site-specific

flexibility provided by part 258, the

Community is placed on a parity with

those owners and operators of MSWLF

units regulated by authorized state

Subtitle D programs. This tentative

determination fosters nondiscrimination in implementing Subtitle

D of RCRA.

The National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act (NTTAA)

The NTTAA requires agencies to

consider using suitable voluntary

consensus standards to carry out policy

objectives or activities. As a rule of

particular applicability, this tentative

determination to approve the alternative

landfill requirements is not subject to

the NTTAA.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This tentative decision is not an

information collection request subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

As a rule of particular applicability,

this tentative determination to approve

the alternative landfill requirements is

not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, as amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

This tentative determination is a rule

of particular applicability and does not

include a federal mandate imposing

enforceable duties upon state, local, or

tribal governments. On this basis, this

tentative determination is not subject to

the requirements of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

Authority: This notice is issued under the

authority of sections 2002, 4004, 4005, and

4010 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6944, 6945, and

6949a. The Regional Administrator is making

this decision in accordance with EPA

Delegations Manual No. 8–47 (October 8,

1993).

Dated: April 27, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–12150 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

American Heritage Rivers Initiative

AGENCY: Council on Environmental

Quality.

ACTION: Description of Administration

policy regarding congressional

opposition to designation of American

Heritage Rivers.

Immediately following the 1997 State

of the Union Address, President Clinton

instructed the Cabinet to work with

communities on the design of the

American Heritage Rivers initiative to

support community-led efforts that spur

economic revitalization, protect natural

resources and the environment, and

preserve our historic and cultural

heritage. In response to this initiative,

communities across the country

nominated 126 rivers (or stretches of

rivers) for designation as an American

Heritage River. An advisory committee

of nonfederal experts will review all

nominations and recommend rivers to

the President for designation.

An interagency working group

convened by the White House

developed guidelines for the review of

nominations. As stated in the Federal

Register Notice of September 17, 1997

and President Clinton’s Executive Order

of April 7, 1998, the advisory committee

will provide an assessment of the

following for each nomination:

1. The scope of each nomination’s

application and the adequacy of its

design to achieve the community’s

goals;

2. Whether the natural, economic

(including agricultural), scenic, historic,

cultural, and/or recreational resources

featured in the application are

distinctive or unique;

3. The extent to which the

community’s plan of action is clearly

defined and the extent to which the

plan addresses all three American

Heritage Rivers objectives—natural

resource and environmental protection,

economic revitalization, and historic

and cultural preservation—either

through planned cooperative action or

past accomplishments.

4. The strength and diversity of

support for the nomination and plan of

action as evidenced by letters from local

and State governments, Indian tribes,

elected officials, any and all parties who

participate in the life and health of the

area nominated, or who have an interest

in the economic life and cultural and

environmental vigor of the involved

community.

The Administration believes that

public input into the design of the

initiative and into individual river

nominations is critically important.

Representatives from Federal agencies

traveled around the country to meet

with community organizations, local

governments and industry associations

to learn their views on the initiative and

incorporate them into its design.

On May 19, 1997, the Administration

published a notice in the Federal

Register requesting comment about the

initiative’s structure, the criteria used to

determine eligible rivers, the needs of

communities for technical assistance

and funding, and other items. The

Administration incorporated many of

the more than 1,700 comments received

during the more than 90 days of public

input into the final design of the

initiative that was published on

September 17, 1997 in the Federal

Register. This notice also included how

communities apply for designation,

specifically asking them to demonstrate

strong and diverse public support for

the nomination.

Nominations closed on December 10,

1997. Members of Congress were sent

copies of nominations from their

districts and asked to provide comments

to the Administration by January 23,

1998.

The Administration received more

than 200 responses from Members of

Congress, both in support and

opposition, to particular nominations.

Overall, Members expressed support for

rivers that were nominated in their

districts or State by more than a 4:1

ratio.

The views of Members of Congress on

specific nominations have particular

importance in evaluating applications.

Elected officials such as Members of

Congress represent a diversity of

concerns within a community that need

to be taken into account. Furthermore,

the views of Members of Congress are

especially relevant in this case since

American Heritage Rivers is a Federal

initiative on behalf of those

communities. The Administration

concluded accordingly that, under the

conditions described in this notice, if a

Member of Congress opposes the

nomination of a river in his or her

district, it means that a sufficient

strength and diversity of support were

not demonstrated for such a

designation, and that the nomination

did not satisfy that particular criteria.

In order to respond to the views of

Members of Congress who oppose

specific nominations, the

Administration has agreed that the

nomination of certain rivers or stretches

of river would be excluded from

consideration for designation under this

initiative, if the Member so requested.
25480 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Notices

The way in which this exclusion works

is summarized in this notice as follows.

A Member of the U.S. House of

Representatives may request that a

nomination as an American Heritage

River not be considered for selection. If

the entire nominated portion of the river

flows through the district of that

Member, then the nomination will not

be considered by the advisory

committee. If only a portion of the river

flows through the Member’s district,

then that portion of the river would not

be included in any designation by the

President. The advisory committee in its

consideration of that nomination would

need to weigh the extent to which that

exclusion affects the merit of the

balance of the nomination. A Member

may only make such a request for rivers,

or portions of rivers, that flow through

his or her district and may not exclude

from consideration the nomination of a

river in the district of another Member.

Likewise, the Senators from a state

may request that a nomination as an

American Heritage River not be

considered for selection. A request

made by both Senators will be

dispositive of the application. If the

entire nominated portion of the river

flows through the state of the Senators,

then the nomination will not be

considered by the advisory committee.

If only a portion of the river flows

through the Senator’s state, then that

portion of the river would not be

included in any designation by the

President. The advisory committee in its

consideration of that nomination would

need to weigh the extent to which that

exclusion affects the merit of the

balance of the nomination. A Senator

may only make such a request for rivers

or portions of rivers that flow through

his or her state and may not exclude

from consideration the nomination of a

river in another state. Of course, if a

single Senator opposes a nomination,

and the other Senator and the relevant

House Member express no view, the

nomination will not be considered by

the advisory committee.

Where the view of a single Senator

who opposes a nomination conflicts

with the position of the other Senator

from that state or a Member of Congress

(for that part of a river which he or she

represents) because one or the other

supports the nomination, then the views

of all members of the Congressional

delegation will be presented to the

advisory committee. In such cases, the

advisory committee will evaluate the

merits of the nomination and the degree

to which the criteria of strength and

diversity of support have been satisfied

by the application. However, if any

House Member opposes a nomination,

then no designation of any stretch of the

river will be considered in his district

as previously outlined in this notice.

Nine rivers completely eliminated

from consideration by Congressional

opposition:

• Clearwater River, ID, MT—

Representative Helen Chenoweth (ID–1),

Senator Conrad Burns (MT), Senator

Larry Craig (ID), Representative Rick

Hill (MT–ALL), Senator Dirk

Kempthorne (ID);

• Gunnison River, CO—

Representative Scott McInnis (CO–3),

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO);

• Osage River, MO—Representative

Ike Skelton (MO–4);

• St. Mary’s River, MI—

Representative Bart Stupak (MI–1);

• San Joaquin River, CA—

Representative George Radanovich (CA–

19);

• San Juan River, NM—

Representative Bill Redmond (NM–3);

• San Luis Rey River, CA—

Representative Randy Cunnningham

(CA–51), Representative Ron Packard

(CA–48);

• Snohomish River, WA—

Representative Jack Metcalf (WA–2);

• Upper Rio Grande, NM—

Representative Bill Redmond (NM–3),

Representative Steve Schiff (NM–1), Joe

Skeen (NM–2).

Sixteen rivers affected in part by

Congressional opposition:

• American River, CA—

Representative John Doolittle (CA–4),

Richard Pombo (CA–11);

• Arkansas River, AR, CO, OK, KS—

Representative Marion Berry (AR–1),

Senator Sam Brownback (KS),

Representative Tom Coburn (OK–2),

Representative Jay Dickey (AR–4),

Representative Jerry Moran (KS–1),

Representative Todd Tiahrt (KS–4), Asa

Hutchinson (AR–3), Senator Tom

Hutchinson (AR), Senator Ben

Nighthorse Campbell (CO);

• Cold Water Creek, MO—

Representative James Talent (MO–2);

• Columbia River, OR—Senator

Gordon H. Smith (OR);

• French Broad River, NC—

Representative Charles Taylor (NC–11);

• James River, VA—Representative

Thomas Bliley, Jr. (VA–7);

• Jordan River, UT—Representative

Christopher Cannon (UT–3);

• Mississippi River, MO—

Representative Pat Danner (MO–6),

Representative James Talent (MO–2);

• Missouri River, MT, MO, NE, SD—

Representative Pat Danner (MO–6),

Representative Rick Hill (MT–ALL),

Representative Kenny Hulshof (MO–9),

Representative James Talent (MO–2),

Representative Ike Skelton (MO–4),

Senator Sam Brownback (KS), Senator

Conrad Burns (MT), Senator Hagel (NE),

Representative John Thune (SD–ALL),

Representative Vincent Snowbarger

(KS–3);

• Ohio River, IN—Representative

John Hostettler (IN–8);

• Ouachita River, LA/AR—

Representative Jay Dickey (AR–4),

Representative Asa Hutchinson (AR–3),

Senator Tim Hutchinson (AR);

• St. John’s River, FL—Representative

David Weldon (FL–15), Representative

Cliff Stearns (FL–6);

• San Antonio River, TX—

Representative Lamar Smith (TX–21);

• South Platte River, CO—Senator

Ben Nighthorse Campbell (CO);

• Santa Cruz River, AZ—Senator Jon

Kyl (AZ);

• Yellowstone River, WY, MT—

Representative Barbara Cubin (WY–

ALL), Representative Rick Hill (MT–

ALL), Senator Conrad Burns (MT),

Senator Michael Enzi (WY), Senator

Craig Thomas (WY);

• Williamette River, OR—Senator

Gordon H. Smith (OR).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Hobbs, Agency Representative,

Council on Environmental Quality, Old

Executive Office Building, Room 360,

Washington, D.C. 20501. Phone: 202–

395–7417; Fax: 202–456–6546.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Kathleen A. McGinty,

Chair, Council on Environmental Quality.

[FR Doc. 98–12432 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3125–01–M

FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA–1214–DR]

Alabama; Amendment No. 4 to Notice

of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Alabama, (FEMA–1214–DR), dated

April 9, 1998, and related

determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 29, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Madge Dale, Response and Recovery

Directorate, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Washington, DC

20472, (202) 646–3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice

of a major disaster for the State of

Alabama, is hereby amended to include

the following area among those areas

determined to have been adversely