41848 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Test

guidelines.

Dated: July 29, 1998.

Susan H. Wayland,

Acting Assistant Administrator for

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 98–20898 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–6135–9]

Notice of Proposed NPDES General

Permit for Discharges From Petroleum

Bulk Stations and Terminals in Texas

(TXG340000)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general

permit.

SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is proposing to

issue a general NPDES permit

authorizing discharges of facility waste

water and contact storm water from

petroleum bulk stations and terminals

in Texas. This permit covers facilities

having Standard Industrial

Classification (SIC) Code 5171.

As proposed, the permit has limits on

Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons,

benzene, Total BTEX (sum of benzene,

toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene),

Total Lead and pH. There is also a

requirement of no acute toxicity as

determined by requiring greater than

50% survival in 100% effluent using a

24 hour acute test. In addition, the

permit has limits on arsenic, barium,

cadmium, chromium, copper,

manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium,

silver and zinc as contained in Texas

Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) Regulations for

Hazardous Metals (30 TAC 319,

Subchapter B), as well as requirements

for no discharge of floating solids or

visible foam in other than trace

amounts, and no discharge of visible oil.

There is also the requirement to develop

and implement a pollution prevention

plan for the storm water discharges

authorized by this permit.

DATES: Comments on this proposed

permit must be submitted by October 5,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed

permit should be sent to the Regional

Administrator, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Wilma Turner, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,

telephone (214) 665–7516. Copies of the

complete fact sheet and proposed

permit may be obtained from Ms.

Turner. The fact sheet and proposed

permit can also be found on the Internet

at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/

6wq.htm. In addition, the current

administrative record on the proposal is

available for examination at the Region’s

Dallas offices during normal working

hours after providing Ms. Turner 24

hours advanced notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated

categories and entities include:

Category Examples of regulated entities

Industry ......... Operators of petroleum bulk

stations and terminals.

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 EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action. Other types of entities not

listed in the table could also be

regulated. To determine whether your

(facility, company, business,

organization, etc.) is regulated by this

action, you should carefully examine

the applicability criteria in Part I,

Section A.1 of this permit. 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.

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act

(CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a),

makes it unlawful to discharge

pollutants to waters of the United States

in the absence of authorizing permits.

CWA section 402, 33 U.S.C. 1342,

authorizes EPA to issue National

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

permits allowing discharges on

condition they will meet certain

requirements, including CWA sections

301, 304, and 401 (33 U.S.C. 1331, 1314

and 1341). Those statutory provisions

require that NPDES permits include

effluent limitations requiring that

authorized discharges: (1) Meet

standards reflecting levels of

technological capability, (2) comply

with EPA-approved state water quality

standards and (3) comply with other

state requirements adopted under

authority retained by states under CWA

510, 33 U.S.C. 1370.

Two types of technology-based

effluent limitations must be included in

the permit proposed here. With regard

to conventional pollutants, i.e., pH,

BOD, oil and grease, TSS and fecal

coliform, CWA section 301(b)(1)(E)

requires effluent limitations based on

‘‘best conventional pollution control

technology’’ (BCT). With regard to

nonconventional and toxic pollutants,

CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), and (D)

require effluent limitations based on

‘‘best available pollution control

technology economically achievable’’

(BAT), a standard which generally

represents the best performing existing

technology in an industrial category or

subcategory. BAT and BCT effluent

limitations may never be less stringent

than corresponding effluent limitations

based on best practicable control

technology (BPT), a standard applicable

to similar discharges prior to March 31,

1989 under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).

National guidelines establishing BPT,

BCT and BAT standards have not been

promulgated for discharges from

petroleum bulk stations and terminals.

The BCT and BAT requirements for

these discharges have, therefore, been

established using best professional

judgement, as required by CWA section

402(a)(1). All of the limitations in this

proposed permit, except for the

requirement to develop and implement

a storm water pollution prevention plan,

are also current requirements in TNRCC

Regulations 30 TAC 321, Subchapter M,

for discharges from petroleum bulk

stations and terminals. The storm water

pollution prevention plan requirements

are those currently required by the

NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector

General Permit for storm water

discharges associated with petroleum

bulk stations and terminals. All of the

discharges authorized by this permit are

also those authorized by 30 TAC 321,

Subchapter M.

In addition to requiring the

development and implementation of a

storm water pollution prevention plan,

the following limits are proposed:

Daily maximum

(mg/l)

Monitoring

frequency

Total petroleum hydrocarbons ...................................................................................................................................... 15 1/week (3).

Benzene ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.05 1/week (3).

Total BTEX (1) .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.5 1/week (3).
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices 41849

Daily maximum

(mg/l)

Monitoring

frequency

Total Lead (2) ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.25 1/week (3).

pH 6.0—9.0 Std. Units ................................................................................................................................................. ...................... 1/week (3).

If discharge occurs less frequently

than the minimum monitoring

frequency, monitoring shall be

conducted for each discharge event. For

a discharge consisting of contact storm

water only, the sample shall be obtained

within 60 minutes after discharge

begins.

(1) The sum of benzene, toluene, ethyl

benzene and xylene.

(2) The monitoring requirements for

lead will be once per year upon the

permittee’s submission of a certification

that none of the substances stored at the

facility include refined petroleum

products or petroleum fuels containing

lead or lead additives. If at a later date,

refined petroleum products or

petroleum fuels containing lead or lead

additives are stored, the permittee must

notify the regulatory agency and the

lead monitoring frequency will become

once per week.

(3) If compliance with a limit is

demonstrated for a period of two years,

the minimum frequency shall be

reduced to once per two weeks upon the

permittee’s submission of a certification

of such compliance. If a subsequent non

compliance occurs, the frequency shall

revert to once per week.

Monthly

average Daily max Singlegrab

Arsenic ............................................................................................................................................................ .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l ..... .3 mg/l.

Barium ............................................................................................................................................................ 1.0 mg/l ... 2.0 mg/l ... 4.0 mg/l.

Cadmium (Inland Waters) .............................................................................................................................. .05 mg/l ... .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l.

Cadmium (Tidal Waters) ................................................................................................................................ .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l ..... .3 mg/l.

Chromium ....................................................................................................................................................... .5 mg/l ..... 1.0 mg/l ... 5.0 mg/l.

Copper ............................................................................................................................................................ .5 mg/l ..... 1.0 mg/l ... 2.0 mg/l.

Manganese ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.0 mg/l ... 2.0 mg/l ... 3.0 mg/l.

Mercury ........................................................................................................................................................... .005 mg/l .005 mg/l .01 mg/l.

Nickel .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.0 mg/l ... 2.0 mg/l ... 3.0 mg/l.

Selenium (Inland Waters) ............................................................................................................................... .05 mg/l ... .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l.

Selenium (Tidal Waters) ................................................................................................................................. .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l ..... .3 mg/l.

Silver ............................................................................................................................................................... .05 mg/l ... .1 mg/l ..... .2 mg/l.

Zinc ................................................................................................................................................................. 1.0 mg/l ... 2.0 mg/l ... 6.0 mg/l.

The minimum monitoring

requirement for these metals is once per

year.

There shall be No Acute Toxicity as

determined by requiring greater than 50

% survival in 100% effluent using a 24

hour acute test. Monitoring shall be a

minimum of once per 6 months using

grab samples.

Other Legal Requirements

A. State Certification

Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act,

EPA may not issue an NPDES permit

until the State in which the discharge

will originate grants or waives

certification to ensure compliance with

appropriate requirements of the Act and

State law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the

Act requires that NPDES permits

contain conditions that ensure

compliance with applicable state water

quality standards or limitations. The

proposed permit contains limitations

intended to ensure compliance with

state water quality standards and has

been determined by EPA Region 6 to be

consistent with the Texas water quality

standards and the corresponding

implementation plan. The Region has

solicited certification from the Texas

Natural Resources Conservation

Commission.

B. Endangered Species Act

The proposed limits are sufficiently

stringent to assure state water quality

standards, both for aquatic life

protection and human health protection,

will be met. The effluent limitations

established in this permit ensure

protection of aquatic life and

maintenance of the receiving water as

an aquatic habitat. The Region finds that

adoption of the proposed permit is

unlikely to adversely affect any

threatened or endangered species or its

critical habitat. EPA is seeking written

concurrence from the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service on this

determination.

C. Historic Preservation Act

Facilities which adversely affect

properties listed or eligible for listing in

the National Register of Historical

Places are not authorized to discharge

under this permit.

D. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this action from

the review requirements of Executive

Order 12866.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection required

by this permit has been approved by

OMB under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., in submission made for the

NPDES permit program and assigned

OMB control numbers 2040–0086

(NPDES permit application) and 2040–

0004 (discharge monitoring reports).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 201 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), P.L.

104–4, generally requires Federal

agencies to assess the effects of their

‘‘regulatory actions’’ on State, local, and

tribal governments and the private

sector. UMRA uses the term ‘‘regulatory

actions’’ to refer to regulations. (See,

e.g., UMRA section 201, ‘‘Each agency

shall * * * assess the effects of Federal

regulatory actions * * * (other than to

the extent that such regulations
41850 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

incorporate requirements specifically

set forth in law)’’ (emphasis added)).

UMRA section 102 defines ‘‘regulation’’

by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of

the U.S. Code, which in turn defines

‘‘regulation’’ and ‘‘rule’’ by reference to

section 601(2) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA). That section of

the RFA defines ‘‘rule’’ as ‘‘any rule for

which the agency publishes a notice of

proposed rulemaking pursuant to

section 553(b) of [the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA)], or any other

law * * *.’’

NPDES general permits are not

‘‘rules’’ under the APA and thus not

subject to the APA requirement to

publish a notice of proposed

rulemaking. NPDES general permits are

also not subject to such a requirement

under the CWA. While EPA publishes a

notice to solicit public comment on

draft general permits, it does so

pursuant to the CWA section 402(a)

requirement to provide ‘‘an opportunity

for a hearing.’’ Thus, NPDES general

permits are not ‘‘rules’’ for RFA or

UMRA purposes.

EPA thinks it is unlikely that this

proposed permit issuance would

contain a Federal requirement that

might result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local and

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

the private sector in any one year.

The Agency also believes that the

proposed permit issuance would not

significantly nor uniquely affect small

governments. For UMRA purposes,

‘‘small governments’’ is defined by

reference to the definition of ‘‘small

governmental jurisdiction’’ under the

RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),

referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which

references section 601(5) of the RFA.)

‘‘Small governmental jurisdiction’’

means governments of cities, counties,

towns, etc., with a population of less

than 50,000, unless the agency

establishes an alternative definition.

The proposed permit issuance also

would not uniquely affect small

governments because compliance with

the proposed permit conditions affects

small governments in the same manner

as any other entities seeking coverage

under the permit.

G. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that EPA

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

for regulations that have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Compliance with the permit

requirements will not result in a

significant impact on dischargers,

including small businesses, covered by

these permits. EPA Region 6 therefore

concludes that the permits proposed

today will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Dated: July 29, 1998.

William B. Hathaway,

Director, Water Quality Protection Division,

EPA Region 6.

[FR Doc. 98–20901 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

July 29, 1998.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commissions, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection, as

required by the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid control

number. 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.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimate; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on

this information collection should

submit comments October 5, 1998. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all comments to Les

Smith, Federal Communications

Commissions, Room 234, 1919 M St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to lesmith@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Les

Smith at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at lesmith@fcc.gov.

OMB Approval Number: 3060–0062

Title: Application for Authorization to

Construct New or Make Changes In an

Instructional Television Fixed and/or

Response Station(s), or to Assign or

Transfer Such Station(s)

Form Number: FCC 330

Type of Review: Revision of currently

approved collection

Respondents: Not-for-profit

institutions, state, local or tribal

government

Number of Respondents: 500

Estimated Time Per Response: 10

hours (1 hour/respondent; 6 hours/

contract engineer; 3 hours/contract

attorney)

Total Annual Burden: 500 hours

Frequency of Response: On occasion

reporting requirements.

Estimated Cost to Respondents:

$675,000

Needs and Uses: FCC Form 330 is

used to apply for authority to construct

a new or make changes in an

Instructional Television Fixed or

response station and low power relay

station, or for consent to license

assignment or transfer of control.

The Commission has revised the FCC

Form 330 to facilitate electronic

application processing by replacing

narrative exhibits with a series of ‘‘yes/

no’’ questions.

The data are used by FCC staff to

determine if the applicant meets basic

statutory requirements and is qualified

to become a licensee of the Commission.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20874 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the

Federal Communications Commission

for Extension Under Delegated

Authority, Comments Requested

July 29, 1998

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burden

invites the general public and other

Federal agencies to take this

opportunity to comment on the

following information collection(s), as

required by the Paperwork Reduction