Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices 63517

Among other things, intervenors have

the right to receive copies of caserelated Commission documents and

filings by other intervenors. Likewise,

each intevenor must provide copies of

its filings to all other parties. If you

want to become an intervenor you must

file a motion to intervene according to

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR

385.214) (see appendix 2).

The date for filing of timely motions

to intervene in this proceeding has

passed. Therefore, parties now seeking

to file late interventions must show

good cause, as required by Section

385.214(b)(3), why this time limitation

should be waived. Environmental issues

have been viewed as good cause for late

intervention,. You do not need

intervenor status to have your scoping

comments considered.

Additional information about the

proposed project is available from Mr.

Jeff Shenot, EA Project Manager, at (202)

219–0295.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30061 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. CP96–91–000]

Stingray Pipeline Company; Notice of

Request Under Blanket Authorization

December 5, 1995.

Take notice that on December 1, 1995,

Stingray Pipeline Company (Stingray),

701 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois

60148, filed in Docket No. CP96–91–000

a request pursuant to Sections 157.205

and 157.208(b) of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.205, 157.208) for

authorization to own and operate, by

means of construction and acquisition,

various facilities located offshore

Louisiana, in order to give Stingray

access to additional gas supplies and to

expand operational flexibility, under

Stingray’s blanket certificate issued in

Docket No. CP91–1505–000 pursuant to

Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as

more fully set forth in the request that

is on file with the Commission and open

to public inspection.

Stingray proposes to: (1) Acquire, own

and operate dual 8-inch meter facilities

and approximately 0.13 mile of 20-inch

lateral that will be constructed by

Midcon Exploration Company and Flex

Trend Development Company (the

Producers) on the construction platform

being constructed by the Producers in

Garden Banks Block 72, offshore

Louisiana; (2) construct, own and

operate 15.49 miles of 20-inch lateral

from the Garden Banks 72 production

platform to Stingray’s existing facilities

in Vermilion Block 362, offshore

Louisiana; (3) construct, own and

operate a 20-inch subsea tap valve on

the proposed 20-inch lateral in

Vermilion Block 408 for future

interconnects; and (4) construct, own

and operate a 12-inch subsea tap valve

on the proposed 20-inch lateral in

Vermilion Block 385 for a future

interconnect.

It is stated that construction of the 20-

inch lateral and related facilities will

allow Stingray to receive and transport

up to 75 Mmcf of natural gas per day

produced by the Producers at Garden

Banks 72. It is asserted that the taps

proposed in (3) and (4) above would

allow Stingray additional opportunities

for operational flexibility in acquiring

volumes of gas that may become

available in the future from other

production sources in the Vermilion

and Garden Banks areas. It is estimated

that the cost of acquisition and

construction would be approximately

$8.927 million.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to Section

157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filing a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30013 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. ES96–10–001]

UtiliCorp United Inc.; Notice of

Amended Application

December 5, 1995.

Take notice that on December 1, 1995,

UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp) filed

an amendment to its November 3, 1995,

application in Docket No. ES96–10–000,

under § 204 of the Federal Power Act. In

the original filing, UtiliCorp seeks

authorization to issue and sell up to and

including $7.3 million of Pollution

Control Bonds (PCBs) which would be

secured by a letter of credit. In its

amendment, UtiliCorp indicates that the

original application inadvertently failed

to specify a request for an authorization

that would cover the full amount of the

letter credit used to support the

payment of principal and interest of the

PCBs issuance, when due. In the

amendment, UtiliCorp requests an

authorization to enter into a letter of

credit in the amount of $7,502,300 to be

issued in support of the payment of the

principal of and interest on the PCBs.

Any person desiring to be heard of to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 211

and 214 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211

and 385.214). All such motions or

protests should be filed on or before

December 13, 1995. Protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–30012 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[FRL–5341–3]

CERCLA Enforcement Against Lenders

and Government Entities That Acquire

Property Involuntarily

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Announcement and publication

of policy.

SUMMARY: This policy memorandum sets

forth the Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’) and the Department of

Justice’s (‘‘DOJ’’) policy regarding the

government’s enforcement of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) against lenders and

against government entities that acquire

property involuntarily. As an

enforcement policy, EPA and DOJ

intend to apply as guidance the

provisions of the ‘‘Lender Liability

Rule’’ promulgated in 1992, thereby

endorsing the interpretations and

rationales announced in the Rule. See
63518 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices

1This guidance does not address lender liability

under any statutory or regulatory authority, rule,

regulation, policy, or guidance, other than CERCLA.

Specifically, this guidance does not cover lender

liability determinations as they relate to the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (‘‘RCRA’’)

and RCRA’s Underground Storage Tank program.

2United States v. Fleet Factors Corp., 901 F.2d

1550, 1557 (11th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct.

752 (1991).

3 Fleet, 901 F.2d at 1557.

4 15 F.3d 1100 (D.C . Cir. 1994), reh. denied, 25

F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, American

Bankers Ass’n v. Kelly, 115 S.Ct. 900 (1995).

‘‘Final Rule on Lender Liability Under

CERCLA,’’ 57 Fed. Reg. 18344 (April 29,

1992). This rule was vacated by the

Circuit Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia in 1994.

The purpose of the memorandum is to

provide guidance within EPA and DOJ

on the exercise of enforcement

discretion in determining whether

particular lenders and government

entities that acquire property

involuntarily may be subject to CERCLA

enforcement actions. The memorandum

advises EPA and DOJ personnel to

consult both the regulatory text of the

Rule and the accompanying preamble

language in exercising their enforcement

discretion under CERCLA as to lenders

and government entities that acquire

property involuntarily.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Bulatao, Office of Site

Remediation Enforcement, 401 M St.

SW. (Mail Code 2273A), Washington,

DC 20460 (202–564–6028), or the

RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800–424–

9346 (in the Washington, DC area at

703–412–9810).

Note: The memorandum below has been

altered from the original memorandum

issued on September 22, 1995 to reflect

updated information about obtaining

additional copies and whom to contact for

further information. No other changes were

made to the text of the policy. The original

memorandum issued on September 22, 1995

was not published in the Federal Register.

Dated: November 30, 1995.

Jerry Clifford,

Director, Office of Site Remediation

Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency.

Memorandum

Subject: Policy on CERCLA Enforcement

Against Lenders and Government

Entities That Acquire Property

Involuntarily

From: Steven A. Herman, Assistant

Administrator, Office of Enforcement

and Compliance Assurance, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency

Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney

General, Environment and Natural

Resources Division, United States

Department of Justice

To: Regional Administrators, Regions I–

X, EPA, Regional Counsel, Regions I–

X, EPA, Waste Management Division

Directors, Region I–X, EPA, Chief,

Environmental Enforcement Section,

DOJ, Assistant Section Chiefs,

Environmental Enforcement Section,

DOJ

This memorandum sets forth the

Environmental Protection Agency’s

(‘‘EPA’’) and the Department of Justice’s

(‘‘DOJ’’) policy regarding the

government’s enforcement of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’) against lenders and

against government entities that acquire

property involuntarily. As an

enforcement policy, EPA and DOJ

intend to apply as guidance the

provisions of the ‘‘Lender Liability

Rule’’ promulgated in 1992, thereby

endorsing the interpretations and

rationales announced in the Rule. See

‘‘Final Rule on Lender Liability Under

CERCLA,’’ 57 Fed. Reg. 18,344 (April

29, 1992).1 (This rule has been vacated

by a court, as described below in the

‘‘Background’’ section).

ADDRESSES: Additional copies of this

policy statement can be ordered from

the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS), U.S. Department of

Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Rd.,

Springfield, VA 22161. Orders must

reference NTIS accession number PB95–

234498. For telephone orders or further

information on placing an order, call

NTIS at 703–487–4650 for regular

service or 800–553–NTIS for rush

service. For orders via email/Internet

send to the following address:

orders@ntis.fedworld.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura Bulatao, Office of Site

Remediation Enforcement (Mail Code

2273A), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460 (202–564–6028), or the

RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800–424–

9346 (in the Washington, DC area at

703–412–9810).

I. Background

This policy guidance establishes

EPA’s and DOJ’s position regarding

possible enforcement actions against

lenders and government entities who

are associated with property that may be

subject to a CERCLA response action.

EPA and DOJ recognize CERCLA’s

unintended effects on lenders and

government entities and the relative

concern from these parties regarding the

consequences of potential enforcement.

In light of these concerns, lenders may

refuse to lend money to an owner or

developer of a contaminated or

potentially contaminated property or

they may hesitate in exercising their

rights as secured parties if such loans

are made. Additionally, government

entities that involuntarily acquire

property may be reluctant to perform

certain actions related to contaminated

or potentially contaminated property.

The language of Section 101(20)(A)

leaves lenders and other interested

parties uncertain as to which types of

actions—such as monitoring vessel or

facility operations, requiring

compliance with applicable laws, and

refinancing or undertaking loan

workouts—they may take to protect

their security interests without risking

EPA enforcement under CERCLA.

Courts have not always agreed on when

a lender’s actions are ‘‘primarily to

protect a security interest,’’ and what

degree of ‘‘participation in the

management’’ of the property will forfeit

the lender’s eligibility for the

exemption. This uncertainty was

heightened by dicta in the Fleet

Factors 2 opinion, where the circuit

court suggested that a lender

participating in the management of a

vessel or facility ‘‘to a degree indicating

a capacity to influence the corporation’s

treatment of hazardous waste’’ could be

considered liable under CERCLA.3

The lack of legislative history on and

consistent court treatment of the

CERCLA Section 101(20)(A) security

interest exemption prompted EPA to

address potential lender liability for

cleanup costs at CERCLA sites in the

Lender Liability Rule, which was

promulgated in April 1992.

Regarding the exemption for

government entities, neither the

legislative history of CERCLA Sections

101(20)(D) and 101(35)(A) nor the case

law provide sufficient explanation of

when a property acquisition or transfer

is considered involuntary. Thus, in the

Rule, EPA also clarified the language of

these sections, describing when a

government entity was exempted from

CERCLA enforcement as an owner or

operator or was protected from third

party actions.

However, in Kelley v. EPA,4 the

Circuit Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia vacated the Rule on the

ground that EPA lacked authority to

issue the Rule as a binding regulation.

Nevertheless, the Kelley decision did

not preclude EPA and DOJ from

following the provisions of the Rule as

enforcement policy, and the agencies

have generally done so.

II. Policy Statement

This memorandum reaffirms EPA’s

and DOJ’s intentions to follow the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 237 / Monday, December 11, 1995 / Notices 63519

5 See 57 Fed. Reg. 18,344 (April 29, 1992) (text

and preamble).

6 See Northeast Doran, Inc. v. Key Bank of Maine,

15 F.3rd 1 (1st Cir. 1994); United States v. McLamb,

5 F.3d 69 (4th Cir. 1993); Waterville Indus., Inc. v.

Finance Authority of Maine, 984 F. 2d 549 (1st Cir.

1993); United States v. Fleet Factors, 901 F.2d 1150

(11th Cir. 1990), on remand, 821 F. Supp. 07 (S.D.

Ga. 1993); Kelley v. Tiscornia, 810 F. Supp. 901

(W.D. Mich. 1993); Grantors to the Silresim Site

Trust v. State Street Bank & Trust Co., 23 ELR

20428 (D. Mass. Nov. 24, 1992).

7 See Z & Z Leasing, Inc. v. Graying Reel, Inc.,

873 F.Supp. 51 (E.D. Mich. 1995); Kemp Industries,

Inc. v. Safety Light Corp., 857 F.Supp. 373 (D.N.J.

1994).

provisions of the Lender Liability Rule

as enforcement policy. EPA and DOJ

endorse the interpretations and

rationales announced in the Rule and its

preamble. The purpose of this

memorandum is to provide guidance

within EPA and DOJ on the exercise of

enforcement discretion in determining

whether particular lenders and

government entities that acquire

property involuntarily may be subject to

CERCLA enforcement actions. In

making such determinations, EPA and

DOJ personnel should consult both the

regulatory text of the Rule and the

accompanying preamble language in

exercising their enforcement discretion

under CERCLA as to lenders and

government entities that acquire

property involuntarily.5

After the promulgation of the Lender

Liability Rule, but prior to its

invalidation, several district and circuit

courts adhered to the terms of the Rule

or interpreted the statute in a manner

consistent with the Rule.6 Moreover,

notwithstanding the Rule’s invalidation

in Kelley, since that decision several

courts have also interpreted the statute

in a way that is consistent with the

Rule.7 EPA and DOJ believe that this

case law is further evidence of the

reasonableness of the agencies’

interpretation of the statute, as

embodied formerly in the Rule and now

in this policy statement.

III. Use of This Policy

The policies and procedures

established in this document and any

internal procedures adopted for its

implementation are intended solely as

guidance for employees of EPA and

DOJ. They do not constitute rulemaking

and may not be relied on to create a

right or benefit, substantive or

procedural, enforceable at law, or in

equity, by any person. EPA and DOJ

reserve the right to act at variance with

this guidance or its internal

implementing procedures.

[FR Doc. 95–29842 Filed 12–8–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

[IB Docket No. 95–118, FCC 95–286]

Notice of Public Information

Collections for Streamlining the

International Section 214 Authorization

Process and Tariff Requirements

submitted to OMB for Review and

Approval

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On July 17, 1995, the Federal

Communications Commission released a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

to streamline the international Section

214 authorization process and tariff

requirements. This NPRM, published in

the Federal Register on July 25, 1995,

Volume 60, page 37989, contains

proposed or modified information

collections subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L.

No. 104–13. It has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)

of the PRA. OMB, the general public,

and other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed or modified

information collections contained in

this proceeding.

DATES: Written comments by the public

on the proposed and/or modified

information collections are due January

10, 1996. Written comments must be

submitted by OMB on the proposed

and/or modified information collections

on or before February 9, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications Commission, Room

234, 1919 M Street, NW., Washington,

DC 20554, or via the Internet to

dconway@fcc.gov, and to Timothy Fain,

OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 -

17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503

or via the Internet to fain_t@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information concerning the

information collections contained in

this NPRM contact Dorothy Conway at

202–418–0217, or via the Internet at

dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission, as part of its continuing

effort to reduce paperwork burdens,

invites the general public and the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) to

comment on the information collections

contained in this NPRM. Comments

should address: (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 estimates; (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.

OMB Approval Number: New

Collection.

Title: Streamlining the International

Section 214 Authorization Process and

Tariff Requirements.

Form No.: N/A.

Type of Review: New collection.

Respondents: Business or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 431 per year.

Estimated Time Per Response: 8

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 3448 hours.

Needs and Uses: The NPRM proposes

to streamline the international Section

214 authorization process and tariff

requirements. The proposed rules

would greatly reduce the regulatory

burdens on applicants, authorized

carriers, and the Commission. The

NPRM proposes to reduce the need for

carriers to file multiple applications by

enabling a non-dominant carrier to

obtain a global Section 214

authorization, which is not limited to

specific carrier facilities, and by

eliminating several regulatory

requirements that require carriers to file

multiple Section 214 applications. The

global Section 214 authorization would

allow carriers to provide international

services on a facilities-basis to virtually

all points in the world, using any

licensed facility. This authorization

would be subject to an exclusion list

that the Commission would publish

identifying countries or facilities for

which there are restrictions. In regard to

the regulatory requirements being

removed, Section 63.01 is proposed to

be amended to make it applicable only

to applications for domestic Section 214

authority. A new rule is proposed that

will detail the application requirements

for international Section 214 authority,

and include the provisions for filing a

global Section 214 application. In

addition, the proposed rule will enable

resellers to provide international resale

services via any authorized common

carrier, except those affiliated with the

reseller, without obtaining additional

authority. Also, private line resale

carriers would be able to resell

interconnected private lines for

switched services to all designated

‘‘equivalent’’ countries, without

obtaining additional authority to serve

each equivalent country. And, Section