Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22983

cases were discovered in the 1970’s and

one was discovered in 1987. This is a

very low contamination frequency

considering the thousands of wells

estimated to be operating, and it does

not suggest a widespread current

problem that warrants new Federal

regulations.

The Class V Study also included a

more detailed examination of four

specific types of Class V industrial

wells: (1) Wells used to dispose of

washwater at carwashes that do not

clean undercarriages or engines; (2)

wells used to dispose of food

preparation-related wastewater and food

processing equipment or facility wash

down water; (3) wells used to inject

fluids from laundromats where no

onsite dry cleaning is performed or

where no organic solvents are used for

laundering; and (4) wells used to inject

noncontact cooling water that contains

no additives and has not been

chemically altered. EPA does not

believe the information compiled for

these well types, presented in Volumes

4, 6, 8, and 22, respectively, of the Class

V Study report, demonstrates a potential

to endanger that warrants additional

regulation. For example, across all four

well types, the Study found only one

documented contamination incident

(involving a lobster processing/holding

facility in Maine) and two possible

contamination incidents (involving

carwashes in Hawaii). There remains

concern about some wells at carwashes

being vulnerable to spills or illicit

discharges when an attendant is not

onsite, but the Study did not find

evidence showing that such problems

associated with carwash wells are

actually occurring and warrant the

development of new UIC regulations.

EPA also reevaluated how Class V

UIC primacy States in their regions

address industrial wells using existing

authorities. Class V primacy States have

demonstrated the ability to use existing

authorities to take some form of action

to ensure that Class V industrial wells

do not endanger USDWs. Some States

have an outright ban of industrial wells

while other States require permits for

industrial wells. Some States ban the

wells under some situations but permit

them under others. When a previously

unidentified industrial well is

discovered, the existing UIC programs

investigate the situation and decide on

the best way to address it, which may

include requiring the well to close or get

a permit, depending on site-specific

conditions and threats. Such follow up

investigation and action is usually taken

immediately after a Class V industrial

well is discovered, or as soon thereafter

as possible given a State’s workload

relative to available resources to

implement the Class V portion of their

UIC program. Limited resources, not

regulatory authorities, appears to be the

primary factor that would constrain a

primacy State from taking immediate

action to address the risks posed by

Class V industrial waste disposal wells.

Therefore, an additional layer of Federal

regulation would providing no real safe

guards for protecting underground

sources of drinking water.

In States where EPA directly

implements the Class V portion of the

UIC program, the EPA Regional Offices

always address endangering Class V

wells as soon as they are identified, as

a matter of routine policy under the

existing UIC regulations and authorities.

Although the exact nature and timing of

actions required vary from one Regional

Office to the next, the DI programs

typically require endangering industrial

wells to close or get a permit, and

require site investigation and

remediation in response to any

contamination that may have occurred.

Such actions have been found to send

a strong message to owners or operators

of uninventoried industrial wells that

they too should close their wells. EPA

also communicates this message

officially in outreach materials

distributed to well owners and operators

in DI programs and to staff in primacy

States for them to use as part of their

programs.

4. Proposed Determination

The 1999 final rule included new

stringent regulations targeting the

subcategory of Class V industrial wells

believed to have the highest potential to

endanger USDWs at the time of the 1995

proposal: Motor vehicle waste disposal

wells. Further review of the remaining

types of Class V industrial wells (1)

indicates that they have not been the

source of frequent contamination

incidents and (2) confirms that existing

UIC programs in States where most

industrial wells are known to exist are

already using existing authorities to

adequately address these wells and

protect USDWs. As a result, EPA does

not believe there is a need to develop

additional Federal UIC regulations

applicable to Class V industrial wells at

this time. Instead, the Agency will

continue to prevent endangerment from

individual wells using existing

authorities. This effort will include

enforcing the existing prohibition of

Class IV wells to prevent accidental or

illicit abuses of Class V industrial wells

and continuing to provide technical

assistance and support to State UIC

programs, where needed, to make sure

these wells are being adequately

controlled. EPA also will explore

additional opportunities to

communicate UIC requirements and

obligations to certain industry sectors in

association with the effluent guideline

program implemented under the Clean

Water Act.

V. Comment Solicitation

EPA is soliciting public comment on

the underlying data and rationale

supporting this proposed determination

that additional Federal UIC regulations

are not needed at this time to prevent

Class V wells from endangering

underground sources of drinking water.

This proposed determination is based

on The Class V Underground Injection

Control Study (EPA Document Number

EPA/816–R–99–014, dated September

1999) and other information that has

been placed in the public docket for

comment. Also, EPA is soliciting any

new data or information relevant to the

findings in this proposed determination

and the Class V injection well types it

addresses.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Diane C. Regas,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 01–11413 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of New Schedule for

Final Determination of Critical Habitat

for Wintering Piping Plovers

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 60-day

delay for final determination of critical

habitat.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce a 60-day

delay in making our final determination

of critical habitat for wintering piping

plovers, subject to further court

proceedings. This additional time will

allow us to complete the analyses

required under section 4(b)(2) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), for designation of

critical habitat. We will publish our

final determination in the Federal

Register.

DATES: We will make our final

determination on the designation of

22984 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

critical habitat for wintering piping

plovers by June 29, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Questions about this

document should be directed to the

Chief, Division of Conservation and

Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 4401 North Fairfax, Room 420,

Arlington, Virginia 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Nolin at the above address or

telephone (703) 358–2171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background:

The piping plover (Charadrius

melodus) is a small North American

shorebird that breeds in the Great

Plains, Great Lakes, and upper Atlantic

Coast states; its wintering areas include

the lower Atlantic and Gulf coasts of the

United States. On December 11, 1985,

we published a final rule (50 FR 50720),

listing the piping plover as endangered

in the Great Lakes watershed (Illinois,

Indiana, Michigan, northeastern

Minnesota, New York, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ontario)

and as threatened elsewhere within its

range. All piping plovers on migratory

routes outside of the Great Lakes

watershed or on their wintering grounds

are considered threatened. We did not

designate critical habitat for the species

at that time.

In December 1996, Defenders of

Wildlife (Defenders) filed a lawsuit

against the Department of the Interior

and the Service for failing to designate

critical habitat for the Great Lakes

population of the piping plover.

Defenders filed a second similar lawsuit

for the Northern Great Plains piping

plover population in 1997. These

lawsuits were subsequently combined

(Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Bruce

Babbitt et al., Consolidated Cases Civil

No. 1:96–CV–02695AER and Civil No.

1:97–CV00777AER). In February 2000,

the court issued an order directing us to

publish a proposed critical habitat

designation for the Great Lakes

population of the piping plover by June

30, 2000. Publication of a similar

proposal for nesting areas of the

Northern Great Plains population of

piping plover by May 31, 2001, was also

ordered. A subsequent order directs us

to finalize the critical habitat

designations for the Great Lakes

population by April 30, 2001, including

its wintering habitat, and for the

Northern Great Plains population by

March 15, 2002.

Since we cannot distinguish the Great

Lakes and Great Plains birds on their

wintering grounds, we felt it was

appropriate to propose critical habitat

for all wintering piping plovers

collectively. Further, we determined

that the appropriate course of action

would be to propose critical habitat for

all U.S.-wintering piping plovers on the

same schedule required, under court

order, for the Great Lakes breeding

population. We proposed critical habitat

for wintering piping plovers on July 6,

2000 (65 FR 41782), and published

extensions of the comment period on

August 30, 2000 (65 FR 52691), and

October 27, 2000 (65 FR 64414), so that

the comment period closed on

November 24, 2000. We later reopened

the comment period from February 22,

2001, through March 1, 2001 (66 FR

11134), to accept additional

information. The proposal includes 146

areas along the coasts of North Carolina,

South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,

Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and

Texas. This includes approximately

2,691 kilometers (1,672 miles) of

shoreline along the Gulf and Atlantic

coasts and along margins of interior

bays, inlets, and lagoons.

Section 4(b)(2) of the Endangered

Species Act requires that we designate

or revise critical habitat based upon the

best scientific and commercial data

available and after taking into

consideration the economic impact, and

any other relevant impact, of specifying

any particular area as critical habitat.

We may exclude an area from critical

habitat if we determine that the benefits

of excluding the area outweigh the

benefits of including the area as critical

habitat, provided such exclusion will

not result in the extinction of the

species. We prepared and made

available a draft economic analysis

concerning the proposed critical habitat

designation (65 FR 52691). We received

considerable public comment on our

draft analysis of the economic effects of

the proposed critical habitat

designation; we reopened the comment

period the last time (66 FR 11134)

primarily to accept additional

information into the record on potential

economic effects of the designation.

Given the extent and detail of the

comments on our draft economic

analysis, and especially the significant

portion of these comments that arrived

after we reopened the comment period

in late February, we were only able to

develop a draft final economic analysis

on April 17, 2001, and a revised draft

one week later. We are currently

reviewing this revised draft. The final

economic analysis is a critically

important part of the analysis required

under section 4(b)(2) of the Act; without

the economic analysis, we are unable to

complete an adequate and effective

4(b)(2) analysis.

We, therefore, have delayed by 60

days our final decision on critical

habitat for wintering piping plovers.

Since the current court order requires

this decision to have been made by

April 30, 2001, we have requested the

court to extend the deadline by 60 days,

or until June 29, 2001. We will base our

final determination on material and

information already in the record for

this critical habitat determination and

will publish our determination in the

Federal Register.

Elsewhere in the Federal Register

today we are publishing a final rule

designating critical habitat in the

breeding areas of the endangered Great

Lakes population of piping plovers. In

addition, by May 30, 2001, we will

make a proposed determination of

critical habitat for the breeding areas of

the threatened population of piping

plovers in the northern Great Plains.

Author

The primary authors of this document

are Wendi Weber and Patrick Leonard,

Division of Conservation and

Classification, Arlington, Virginia.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act (16 U.C.S. 1531

et seq.).

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11206 Filed 5–2–01; 12:41 pm]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition To List the Washington

Population of Western Sage Grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus phaios)

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a

12-month finding for a petition to list

the Washington population of western

sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus

phaios) under the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find

that the petitioned action is warranted,

but precluded by higher priority listing

actions. We will develop a proposed