Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7931

of the Main Street and US 50

drawbridges.

This proposed change to the existing

regulations is intended to establish a

schedule that will meet the reasonable

needs of the waterway users and, at the

same time, diminish delays to and

improve the flow of motor vehicles

crossing the bridge.

Based on this information, the Coast

Guard believes these proposed

regulations will not unduly restrict

recreational and commercial vessels

passage through these bridges since they

can plan their transits around the

periods of closures.

Regulatory Evaluation

This proposed action is not a

significant regulatory action under

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866

and does not require an assessment of

potential costs and benefits under

section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has been

exempted from review by the Office of

Management and Budget under that

order. It is not significant under the

regulatory policies and procedures of

the Department of Transportation (DOT)

(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The

Coast Guard expects the economic

impact of this proposal to be so minimal

that a full regulatory Evaluation under

paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies

and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this proposal, if

adopted, will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. ‘‘Small

entities’’ include independently owned

and operated small businesses that are

not dominant in their field and that

otherwise qualify as ‘‘small business

concerns’’ under section 3 of the Small

Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). Because it

expects the impact of this proposal to be

minimal, the Coast Guard certifies

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposal,

if adopted, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This proposal contains no collection

of information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal under the principals and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has determined that this

proposal will not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that under section

2.B.2.E.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

statement and checklist has been

prepared and placed in the rulemaking

docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Coast Guard proposes to amend Part 117

of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations

to read as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499, 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g)

2. Section 117.579 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 117.579 Wicomico River (North Prong).

The draws of the Main Street and US

50 bridges, mile 22.4, at Salisbury,

Maryland shall open on signal, except;

(a) From 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 12

noon to 1 p.m., and from 4 p.m. to 6

p.m., the draw need not be opened for

the passage of vessels, except

(b) for tugs with tows, if at least three

hours advance notice is given, and the

reason for opening during a closure

period described in paragraph (a) of this

section is due to delays caused by

inclement weather or other emergency

or unforeseen circumstances.

Dated: January 20, 1995.

M.K. Cain,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth

Coast Guard District, Acting.

[FR Doc. 95–3432 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[FRL–5153–2]

Notice and Open Meeting of the

Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory

Committee for Small Nonroad Engine

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: FACA Committee Meeting—

Negotiated Rulemaking on Small

Nonroad Engine Regulations.

SUMMARY: As required by section 9(a)(2)

of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463), EPA is giving notice of

the next meeting of the Advisory

Committee to negotiate a rule to reduce

air emissions from small nonroad

engines. The meeting is open to the

public without advance registration.

The purpose of the meeting is to

continue identification and discussion

of issues, discuss interests of committee

members, and hear reports from task

groups.

DATES: The committee will meet on

February 21 and 22, 1995 from 10 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The location of the meeting

will be the Holiday Inn East, 3750

Washtenaw, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, (313)

971–2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Persons needing further information on

the technical and substantive matters of

the rule should contact Betsy McCabe,

National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions

Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann

Arbor, Michigan 48105, (313) 668–4344.

Persons needing further information on

committee procedes should call

Deborah Dalton, Consensus and Dispute

Resolution Program, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260–5495,

or the Committee’s facilitator, Lucy

Moore or John Folk-Williams, Western

Network, 616 Don Gaspar, Santa Fe,

New Mexico, 87501, (505) 982–9805.

Dated: February 6, 1995.

Chris Kirtz,

Acting Designated Federal Official, Deputy

Director, Consensus and Dispute Resolution

Program.

[FR Doc. 95–3462 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS CA 102–4–6757; FRL–5152–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from light
7932 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

2The San Francisco Bay Area retained its

designation of nonattainment and was classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

and medium duty motor vehicle

assembly plants, from the surface

coating of large appliances and metal

furniture, from wood coating operations,

and from air stripping and soil vapor

extraction operations.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. EPA has evaluated each

of these rules and is proposing to

approve them under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nikole Reaksecker, Rulemaking Section

(A–5–3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. (415) 744–

1187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the California SIP include: Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD), Regulation 8, Rule 13 (Rule

8–13), Light and Medium Duty Motor

Vehicle Assembly Plants; Regulation 8,

Rule 14 (Rule 8–14), Surface Coating of

Large Appliances and Metal Furniture;

Regulation 8, Rule 23 (Rule 8–23),

Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and

Wood Flat Stock; and Regulation 8, Rule

47 (Rule 8–47), Air Stripping and Soil

Vapor Extraction Operations. These

rules were submitted by the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on

September 28, 1994.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included the

San Francisco Bay Area. 43 FR 8964; 40

CFR 81.305. Because this area was

unable to meet the statutory attainment

date of December 31, 1982, California

requested under section 172(a)(2), and

EPA approved, an extension of the

attainment date to December 31, 1987.

(40 CFR 52.222) On May 26, 1988, EPA

notified the Governor of California,

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

pre-amended Act, that the above

district’s portion of the California SIP

was inadequate to attain and maintain

the ozone standard and requested that

deficiencies in the existing SIP be

corrected (EPA’s SIP-Call). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. In

amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

ozone and established a deadline of May

15, 1991 for states to submit corrections

of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. The San Francisco Bay Area is

classified as moderate; 2 therefore, this

area was subject to the RACT fix-up

requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline.

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on September

28, 1994, including the rules being acted

on in this document. This document

addresses EPA’s proposed action for

BAAQMD’s Rules 8–13, 8–14, 8–23, and

8–47. BAAQMD adopted Rule 8–14 on

June 1, 1994, and adopted Rules 8–13,

8–23 and 8–47 on June 15, 1994. These

submitted rules were found to be

complete on November 22, 1994

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 3 and are being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

Rule 8–13 controls VOC emissions

from light and medium duty motor

vehicle assembly plants. Rule 8–14

controls VOC emissions from the

surface coating of large appliances and

metal furniture. Rule 8–23 controls VOC

emissions from the coating of flat wood

paneling and wood flat stock. Rule 8–47

limits VOC emissions from new and

modified air stripping and soil vapor

extraction equipment used for the

treatment of contaminated groundwater

and soil. VOCs contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. The rules were adopted as part of

the District’s efforts to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone and in response to

EPA’s SIP-Call and the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

1. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 7933

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules. See section

182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to

BAAQMD’s Rule 8–13 is entitled

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions

from Stationary Sources—Volume II:

Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,

Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty

Trucks’’, EPA–450/2–77–008. The CTGs

applicable to BAAQMD’s Rule 8–14 are

entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources—Volume V: Surface Coating of

Large Appliances’’, EPA–450/2–77–034,

and ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic

Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources—Volume III: Surface Coating of

Metal Furniture’’, EPA–450/2–77–032.

The CTG applicable to BAAQMD’s Rule

8–23 is entitled ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Emissions from Existing

Stationary Sources—Volume VII:

Factory Surface Coating of Flat Wood

Paneling’’, EPA–450/2–78–032. Rule 8–

47 controls emissions from a source

category for which EPA has not

developed a CTG. Consequently, Rule

8–47 was evaluated against the general

RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act

(section 110 and part D), 40 CFR part 51,

and other EPA policy including the EPA

Region IX/CARB document entitled,

Guidance Document for Correcting VOC

Rule Deficiencies, April 1991. Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found

in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote

1. In general, these guidance documents

have been set forth to ensure that VOC

rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

BAAQMD’s submitted Rule 8–13

includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

• deletes exemptions for

miscellaneous coatings and constrained

coating lines,

• incorporates applicable coating

limits from two other BAAQMD rules

(Rules 8–19 and 8–31) into Rule 8–13,

• establishes VOC limits on a ‘‘solidsapplied basis’’,

• adds and changes several

definitions,

• develops a new compliance

schedule,

• revises recordkeeping section to

require monthly records instead of

annual records,

• adds recordkeeping requirements

for air pollution abatement equipment,

• includes EPA Test Methods 24 and

24A as test methods that can be used to

determine compliance.

BAAQMD’s submitted Rule 8–14

includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

• reduces low usage coating

exemption amount to 55 gallons,

• adds a definition for key system

operating parameter,

• adds recordkeeping requirements

for air pollution abatement equipment,

• includes EPA suggested language

referencing EPA Test Methods 25 and

25A as test methods that can be used to

determine compliance.

BAAQMD’s submitted Rule 8–23

includes the following significant

changes from the current SIP:

• mandates that air pollution

abatement equipment have an

abatement device efficiency of at least

90% and meet the requirements of

Regulation 2, Rule 1,

• requires persons operating air

pollution abatement equipment to

record key system operating parameters

on a daily basis,

• includes EPA suggested language

referencing EPA Test Methods 25 and

25A as test methods that can be used to

determine compliance.

BAAQMD’s Rule 8–47 is a new rule

which was adopted to limit the VOC

emissions from air stripping and soil

vapor extraction equipment used for the

treatment of contaminated groundwater

and soil. The rule strengthens the SIP

by:

• regulating a previously unregulated

source,

• requiring any air stripping and soil

vapor extraction operations which emit

benzene, vinyl chloride,

perchloroethylene, methylene chloride

and/or trichloroethylene to be vented to

a control device which reduces

emissions to the atmosphere by at least

90% by weight,

• mandating that any air stripping

and soil vapor extraction operations

with a total organic compound emission

greater than 15 pounds per day be

vented to a control device which

reduces emissions to the atmosphere by

at least 90% by weight,

• requiring sources to apply for

permits and/or to provide written

notification of intention to operate and

to maintain records of water analysis

and vapor monitoring results,

• providing test methods for air

stripper water samples, organic

compound concentration in the water,

and the determination of emissions,

• exempting small operations, air

stripping and soil vapor extraction

operations with total emissions of less

than one pound per day, sewage

treatment facilities, and industrial

wastewater treatment facilities.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

BAAQMD’s Rule 8–13, Light and

Medium Duty Motor Vehicle Assembly

Plants, Rule 8–14, Surface Coating of

Large Appliances and Metal Furniture,

Rule 8–23, Coating of Flat Wood

Paneling and Wood Flat Stock, and Rule

8–47, Air Stripping and Soil Vapor

Extraction Operations, are being

proposed for approval under section

110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and part

D.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.
7934 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Dated: February 1, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3376 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–139–1–6667b; FRL–5141–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Tennessee; Revision to New Source

Review, Construction and Operating

Permit Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Tennessee for the purpose of bringing

the State’s new source review (NSR)

regulations into compliance with the

1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act

(CAA) and the Federal regulations. In

the final rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. A detailed rationale

for the approval is set forth in the direct

final rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to that direct final

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

document should do so at this time.

DATES: To be considered, comments

must be received by March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Ms. Karen Borel, at the

Regional Office Address listed.

Copies of the material submitted by

the State of Tennessee may be examined

during normal business hours at the

following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC

20460.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365.

Tennessee Division of Air Pollution

Control, 701 Broadway, Customs House,

4th floor, Nashville, Tennessee 37247–

1531.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Karen Borel, Regulatory Planning and

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics

Management Division, Region 4

Environmental Protection Agency, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365. The telephone number is 404/

347–3555, ext 4197. Reference file TN–

139–1–6667b.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information see the direct

final rule which is published in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 9, 1995.

Patrick M. Tobin,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–3333 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5152–2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance

Contingency Plan; National Priorities

List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete Wilson

Concepts Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: EPA, Region IV, announces its

intent to delete the Wilson Concepts

Superfund Site (Site) in Pompano

Beach, Broward County, Florida, from

the NPL and requests public comment

on this action. The NPL constitutes

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended.

EPA and the State of Florida (State)

have determined that all appropriate

response actions under CERCLA have

been implemented and that no further

cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the

State have determined that the remedial

actions conducted at the Site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

deletion from the NPL should be

submitted no later than March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Olga Perry, Remedial Project Manager,

South Superfund Remedial Branch,

Waste Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, GA 30365.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available through the EPA Region

IV public docket, which is located at

EPA’s Region IV office and is available

for viewing by appointment from 9:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding holidays. Requests for

appointments or copies of the

background information from the

regional public docket should be

directed to the EPA Region IV docket

office.

The address for the regional docket

office is Ms. Debbie Jourdan, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IV, 345 Courtland Street, NE.,

Atlanta, Georgia 30365, telephone No.:

(404) 347–5059, ext. 6217.

Background information from the

regional public docket is also available

for viewing at the Site information

repository located at the Broward

County Main Library, Government

Documents, 100 South Andrews Avenue

NE., Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Olga Perry, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IV, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia

30365, (404) 347–2643, ext. 6249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletions

I. Introduction

EPA, Region IV, announces its intent

to delete the Site from the NPL, which

constitutes Appendix B of the NCP, and

requests comments on this proposed

deletion. EPA identifies sites that

appear to present a significant risk to

public health, welfare, or the

environment and maintains the NPL as

the list of those sites. Sites on the NPL

may be the subject of remedial actions

financed by the Hazardous Substances

Superfund (Fund). Pursuant to

§ 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site

deleted from the NPL remains eligible

for Fund-financed Remedial Actions in

the unlikely event that conditions at the

site warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments

concerning this Site until March 13,

1995.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses how the Site meets the

deletion criteria.