Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60511 

the waste ‘‘in the ground where it is’’

rather than expose the public to risk by 

transporting the waste to another site. 

DOE cannot leave the waste at Battelle 

since to do so would violate the NRC 

requirements for continued storage of 

this waste. The waste is currently in 

aboveground storage, rather than ‘‘in the 

ground’’ and poses some continuing risk 

to the surrounding population. The 

waste will be transported to another site 

in NRC approved TRU waste casks that 

are sealed to prevent leakage. The WIPP 

site is an existing deep underground 

disposal site that is designed to isolate 

the waste from humans and the 

environment. 

One commenter stated that DOE 

cannot choose WCS as a storage site for 

the Battelle West Jefferson waste. The 

commenter asserted that, because WCS 

was not included as an alternative in the 

WM PEIS and because DOE has not 

conducted an analysis of the 

environmental impacts of storage at the 

WCS site, DOE cannot choose WCS as 

a storage site without completing a 

supplemental WM PEIS that includes 

WCS as an alternative. The commenter 

also asserted that storage at WCS is 

inappropriate because WCS, as a nonDOE site, is unable to prepare the waste 

for shipment to WIPP, while SRS (and 

other DOE sites considered in the WM 

PEIS) could. The commenter further 

asserted that the definition of interim 

storage contained in the WCS license 

would prevent storage of the Battelle 

West Jefferson Waste because the waste 

does not meet WIPP waste acceptance 

criteria. In addition, the commenter 

states that DOE should have considered 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as 

possible alternative storage sites for this 

waste and it should have provided a 

more extensive discussion of the 

alternative of continued onsite storage at 

the Battelle West Jefferson site. 

Although the WM PEIS did not 

analyze waste management actions at 

commercial sites, DOE is not precluded 

from using such sites. Further, based on 

the conclusions in the SA, DOE does not 

believe that a supplemental EIS is 

needed. 

There is no requirement that a site be 

a DOE site before a waste 

characterization program can be 

established at that site. The definition of 

interim storage does not prevent WCS 

from storing the Battelle West Jefferson 

waste. Under the definition cited by the 

commenter, the waste would have to be 

properly packaged and meet the waste 

acceptance criteria for ‘‘an authorized 

disposal facility, or an authorized 

federal agency.’’ However, even if the 

waste does not meet the waste 

acceptance criteria for WIPP (the 

authorized disposal facility), the waste 

will meet the waste acceptance criteria 

for a DOE site (e.g. SRS) before it would 

be sent to WCS for storage. This would 

be sufficient to meet the definition of 

the WCS license. 

The alternatives of sending the waste 

to ORNL or INL were considered in the 

WM PEIS and not chosen in the original 

Record of Decision. DOE is not 

reconsidering that decision at this time. 

The alternative of continued storage at 

Battelle is unacceptable because NRC 

has indicated it will not renew the 

Battelle license for this waste. 

The SA reviewed the potential health 

and environmental impacts of the new 

proposed action as compared to those 

identified in the WM PEIS, the WIPP 

SEIS–II, and the SRS Waste 

Management EIS. The potential impacts 

of the proposed action are very small 

and would not add significantly to those 

previously reported. 

DOE has determined, therefore, that 

the proposed actions would not, either 

under incident-free or accident 

conditions, present a substantial change 

relevant to environmental concerns or 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts. Therefore, DOE 

determined that a supplemental EIS or 

a new EIS is not required under 40 CFR 

1502.9(c) or 10 CFR 1021.314(c) to 

implement this proposal. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

October 2005. 

Dr. Ine ́s R. Triay, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–20804 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7984–9] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement, 

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is 

hereby given of a proposed settlement 

agreement, to address petitions for 

review filed by the American Chemistry 

Council, the General Electric Company 

and the Coke Oven Environmental Task 

Force (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). Stan 

Stephens, et al. v. EPA, Nos. 04–1112, 

04–1117, 04–1118, and 04–1119 (D.C. 

Cir.). In April 2004, petitioners filed 

petitions for review challenging the 

final EPA rule entitled ‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution 

(Non-Gasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69 

FR 5038 (February 3, 2004). Under the 

terms of the proposed settlement 

agreement, EPA has agreed that: On or 

before October 31, 2005, the EPA 

Administrator will sign a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to amend the OLD 

as provided in Attachment A to the 

Settlement Agreement; As part of the 

proposed amendments to the OLD, EPA 

will include language in the preamble as 

provided in Attachment B to the 

Settlement Agreement; and within 180 

days of the date the comment period on 

the proposed amendments closes, EPA 

will sign a notice of final rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by November 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID number OGC–

2005–0014, online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD–

ROM should be formatted in 

Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption, and may be mailed to the 

mailing address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Thrift, Air and Radiation Law 

Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 

564–5596. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement 

This case concerns challenges to the 

rule entitled ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69 FR 

5038 (February 3, 2004). These 

standards are based on the performance 

of Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT), and implement 

section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act. 

60512 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

Under the terms of the proposed 

settlement agreement, EPA has agreed 

that: (1) On or before October 31, 2005, 

the EPA Administrator will sign a notice 

of proposed rulemaking to amend the 

OLD as provided in Attachment A to the 

Settlement Agreement; (2) As part of the 

proposed amendments to the OLD, EPA 

will include language in the preamble as 

provided in Attachment B to the 

Settlement Agreement; (3) Within 180 

days of the date the comment period on 

the proposed amendments closes, EPA 

will sign a notice of final rulemaking. 

Petitioners have agreed to dismiss 

their petitions for review if EPA takes 

final action amending the OLD in a 

manner substantially the same as the 

amendments set forth in Attachment A 

and not substantially inconsistent with 

the language in Attachment B. 

For a period of thirty (30) days 

following the date of publication of this 

notice, the Agency will receive written 

comments relating to the proposed 

settlement agreement from persons who 

were not named as parties or interveners 

to the litigation in question. EPA or the 

Department of Justice may withdraw or 

withhold consent to the proposed 

settlement agreement if the comments 

disclose facts or considerations that 

indicate that such consent is 

inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Act. Unless EPA or the Department 

of Justice determine, based on any 

comment which may be submitted, that 

consent to the settlement agreement 

should be withdrawn, the terms of the 

agreement will be affirmed. 

II. Additional Information About 

Commenting on the Proposed 

Settlement 

A. How Can I Get A Copy Of the 

Settlement? 

EPA has established an official public 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. OGC–2005–0014 which contains a 

copy of the settlement. The official 

public docket is available for public 

viewing at the Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 

1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA Docket 

Center Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the OEI 

Docket is (202) 566–1752. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ 

to submit or view public comments, 

access the index listing of the contents 

of the official public docket, and to 

access those documents in the public 

docket that are available electronically. 

Once in the system, select ‘‘search,’’

then key in the appropriate docket 

identification number. 

It is important to note that EPA’s 

policy is that public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or on paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket as EPA receives them and 

without change, unless the comment 

contains copyrighted material, CBI, or 

other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information 

claimed as CBI and other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute 

is not included in the official public 

docket or in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. EPA’s policy is that copyrighted 

material, including copyrighted material 

contained in a public comment, will not 

be placed in EPA’s electronic public 

docket but will be available only in 

printed, paper form in the official public 

docket. Although not all docket 

materials may be available 

electronically, you may still access any 

of the publicly available docket 

materials through the EPA Docket 

Center. 

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit 

Comments? 

You may submit comments as 

provided in the ADDRESSES section. 

Please ensure that your comments are 

submitted within the specified comment 

period. Comments received after the 

close of the comment period will be 

marked ‘‘late.’’ EPA is not required to 

consider these late comments. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

EPA recommends that you include your 

name, mailing address, and an e-mail 

address or other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. This 

ensures that you can be identified as the 

submitter of the comment and allows 

EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot 

read your comment due to technical 

difficulties or needs further information 

on the substance of your comment. Any 

identifying or contact information 

provided in the body of a comment will 

be included as part of the comment that 

is placed in the official public docket, 

and made available in EPA’s electronic 

public docket. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. 

Your use of EPA’s electronic public 

docket to submit comments to EPA 

electronically is EPA’s preferred method 

for receiving comments. The electronic 

public docket system is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, which means EPA will 

not know your identity, e-mail address, 

or other contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

In contrast to EPA’s electronic public 

docket, EPA’s electronic mail (e-mail) 

system is not an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the Docket without going 

through EPA’s electronic public docket, 

your e-mail address is automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the official 

public docket, and made available in 

EPA’s electronic public docket. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

Brenda Mallory, 

Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, 

Office of General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–20814 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7984–5] 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) or Superfund, Section 

128(a); Notice of Grant Funding 

Guidance for State and Tribal 

Response Programs 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) will begin to accept 

requests, from December 1, 2005 

through January 31, 2006, for grants to 

supplement State and Tribal Response 

Programs. This notice provides 

guidance on eligibility for funding, use 

of funding, grant mechanisms and 

process for awarding funding, the 

allocation system for distribution of 

funding, and terms and reporting under 

these grants. EPA has consulted with 

state and tribal officials in developing 

this guidance. 

The primary goal of this funding is to 

ensure that state and tribal response 

programs include, or are taking 

reasonable steps to include, certain 

elements and a public record. Another 

goal is to provide funding for other 

activities that increase the number of 

response actions conducted or overseen 

by a state or tribal response program. 

This funding is not intended to supplant 

current state or tribal funding for their