Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15273

of Federal enforceability. These

deficiencies include Executive Officer

discretion in approving CEMS, lack of

test methods, and lack of monitoring

requirements to demonstrate exemption

eligibility. A more detailed discussion

of the sources controlled, the controls

required, justification for why these

controls represent RACT, and the rule

deficiencies can be found in the

Technical Support Document (TSD),

which is available from the U.S. EPA,

Region IX office. Because of the rule

deficiencies, Rule 1134 is not

approvable pursuant to section

182(a)(2), section 182(b)(2), section

182(f) and part D of the CAA, because

it is not consistent with the

interpretation of section 172 of the 1977

CAA as found in the Blue Book and may

lead to rule enforceability problems.

Because of the above deficiencies,

EPA cannot grant full approval of this

rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D.

Also, because the submitted rule is not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a

limited approval of SCAQMD’s

submitted Rule 1134 under sections

110(k)(3), 301(a), and 182(f) of the CAA.

At the same time, EPA is also

proposing a limited disapproval of this

rule because it contains deficiencies

which must be corrected in order to

fully meet the requirements of section

182(a)(2), 182(b)(2), 182(f), and part D of

the CAA. Under section 179(a)(2), if the

Administrator disapproves a submission

under section 110(k) for an area

designated nonattainment, based on the

submission’s failure to meet one or more

of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the

sanctions set forth in section 179(b)

unless the deficiency has been corrected

within 18 months of such disapproval.

Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: Highway

funding and offsets. The 18 month

period referred to in section 179(a) will

begin on the effective date of EPA’s final

limited disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted

that the rule covered by this NPRM has

been adopted by the SCAQMD and is

currently in effect in the SCAQMD.

EPA’s limited disapproval action will

not prevent SCAQMD or EPA from

enforcing this rule.

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 Flexibility

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

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

Limited approvals under section 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 affected small

entities. 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 Office of Management and Budget

has waived this regulatory action from

Executive Order 12866 review.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: March 8, 1995.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–7210 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5177–5]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Koch Refining Company from the

National Priorities List; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

EPA) Region V announces its intent to

delete the Koch Refining Company Site

from the National Priorities List (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 U.S. EPA promulgated pursuant

to Section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) as amended. This action is

being taken by U.S. EPA, because it has

been determined that all Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented and U.S. EPA, in

consultation with the State of

Minnesota, has determined that no

further response is appropriate.

Moreover, U.S. EPA and the State have

determined that remedial activities

conducted at the Site to date have been

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

DATES: Comments concerning the

proposed deletion of the Site from the

NPL may be submitted on or before

April 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Gladys Beard (HSRM–J) Associate

Remedial Project Manager, Office of

Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Comprehensive information on the site

is available at U.S. EPA’s Region V

office and at the local information

repository located at: Minnesota

Pollution Agency Public Library, 520

Lafayette RD. St. Paul, MN 55155–194.

Requests for comprehensive copies of

documents should be directed formally

to the Region V Docket Office. The

address and phone number for the

Regional Docket Officer is Jan
15274 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Pfundheller (H–J), U.S. EPA, Region V,

77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,

(312) 353–821.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gladys Beard (HSRM–J) Associate

Remedial Project Manager, Office of

Superfund, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312)

886–253 or Cheryl Allen (P–9J), Office

of Public Affairs, U.S. EPA, Region V, 77

W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,

(312) 353–6196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region V announces its

intent to delete the Koch refining

Company Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL), which constitutes

Appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP), and requests

comments on the proposed deletion.

The 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 Substance Superfund

Response Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant

to Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any

site deleted from the NPL remains

eligible for Fund-financed remedial

actions if the conditions at the site

warrant such action.

The U.S. EPA will accept comments

on this proposal for thirty (30) days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

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 the history of this site and

explains how the site meets the deletion

criteria.

Deletion of sites from the NPL does

not itself create, alter, or revoke any

individual’s rights or obligations.

Furthermore, deletion from the NPL

does not in any way alter U.S. EPA’s

right to take enforcement actions, as

appropriate. The NPL is designed

primarily for informational purposes

and to assist in Agency management.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria the

Agency uses to delete Sites from the

NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from

the NPL where no further response is

appropriate. In making this

determination, U.S. EPA will consider,

in consultation with the State, whether

any of the following criteria have been

met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

or

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

(iii) The Remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, remedial

measures are not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

Upon determination that at least one

of the criteria described in 300.425(e)

has been met, U.S. EPA may formally

begin deletion procedures once the State

has concurred. This Federal Register

notice, and a concurrent notice in the

local newspaper in the vicinity of the

Site, announce the initiation of a 30-day

comment period. The public is asked to

comment on U.S. EPA’s intention to

delete the Site from the NPL. All critical

documents needed to evaluate U.S.

EPA’s decision are included in the

information repository and the deletion

docket.

Upon completion of the public

comment period, if necessary, the U.S.

EPA Regional Office will prepare a

Responsiveness Summary to evaluate

and address comments that were

received. The public is welcome to

contact the U.S. EPA Region V Office to

obtain a copy of this responsiveness

summary, if one is prepared. If U.S. EPA

then determines the deletion from the

NPL is appropriate, final notice of

deletion will be published in the

Federal Register.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The Koch Refining Company is

located at the Junction of Highway 52

and 54 in Rosemount, Dakota County,

Minnesota. In 1984, the staff from the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) and Minnesota Department of

Health (MDH) sampled and analyzed

two residential wells downgradient of

the Koch Refining Company (Koch) Site.

The analysis of the samples indicated

the residential wells were contaminated

with VOCs. The Koch Refining

Company had been supplying bottled

water to these two residents as well as

a third since the early 1970’s in

response to analytical results showing

high specific conductance, phenols and

elevated concentrations of several major

ions. Potential sources of contamination

at the Site included leaks, spills and

discharges from active and inactive

watewater lagoons, process areas,

internal pipelines and waste treatment

areas.

On October 15, 1984, the Site was

placed on the Permanent List Priorities

(PLP) and the National Priorities List

(NPL), Federal Register 49 page 40320.

In January 1985, a Request for

Response Action (RFRA) was issued to

Koch requesting Koch to conduct a

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility

Study (RI/FS) for the Site. The Site

investigations, reported in the 1986 and

1988 RI, identified the source of

contamination in the residential wells to

be from a petroleum release originating

from the on-site barge dock pipeline.

The RI reports also identified several

areas of concern including solid waste

management units that the MPCA is

currently addressing under the authority

contained in the Resource Conservation

Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition, the

petroleum releases are being addressed

by the Underground Storage Tank (UST)

regulations of RCRA. However, because

the barge dock pipeline release was

being addressed under Superfund

authority, it was not included in the

areas addressed by the UST regulation

of RCRA. Therefore, the MPCA pursued

the completion of the RI/FS and

developed and implemented a Record of

Decision (ROD) for the barge dock

pipeline release.

The ROD identified three operable

units to be addressed as a part of the

remediation of the barge dock release:

the Product Recovery System for

removal and treatment of free floating

hydrocarbon and contaminated ground

water; the Ground Water Gradient

Control System for containment and

treatment of contaminated ground

water; and the Soil Gas Extraction

System for treatment of contaminated

soil. Koch has implemented the product

system and is working on a pilot study

for the Soil Gas Extraction System. The

pilot study is part of the Tank 12 release

soil gas extraction system currently

being addressed under the authority

contained in the UST regulations of

RCRA. The Tank 12 release is a

petroleum spill from a storage tank

number twelve.

The Underground Storage Tank

Program, established in Subtitle I of the

Resource Conservation Act (RCRA), as

amended by the Hazardous and Solid

Waste Amendments for 1984 (HSWA) is

the regulatory authority with

jurisdiction over cleanup of petroleum

releases. Therefore, it is recommended

that clean-up activities for the barge
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 56 / Thursday, March 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 15275

dock pipeline be implemented under

the authorities contained in the UST

provisions of RCRA. The MPCA is in

agreement with this approach.

The transfer of Site clean-up activities

from CERCLA to RCRA authority is

completed once the NPL and PLP

delisting has taken place.

EPA, with concurrence from the State

of Minnesota, has determined that all

appropriate Fund-financed responses

under CERCLA at the Koch Company

Superfund Site have been completed,

and no further CERCLA response is

appropriate in order to provide

protection of human health and the

environment. Therefore, EPA proposes

to delete the site from the NPL.

Dated: March 9, 1995.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA,

Region V.

[FR Doc. 95–7195 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[MM Docket No. 95–31; FCC 95–79]

Reexamination of the Comparative

Standards for New Noncommercial

Educational Applicants

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: By this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the Commission seeks

additional comments relating to

possible modification of the criteria

currently used to select among

competing applicants for new

noncommercial educational broadcast

facilities.

DATES: Comments are due April 24,

1995; reply comments are due May 10,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Wagner, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2720.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket

No. 95–31, adopted February 28, 1995

and released March 17, 1995. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during regular business hours in the

FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington D.C. The

complete text of this decision also may

be purchased from the Commission’s

duplicating contractor, International

Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. In its Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking In the matter of

Reexamination of the Policy Statement

on Comparative Broadcast Hearings, GC

Docket No. 92–52, 7 FCC Rcd 2664,

2669 [57 Fed. Reg. 14683] (1992) (‘‘1992

NPRM’’), the Commission initiated a

general proceeding to reform the criteria

used to select among mutually exclusive

applicants for new broadcast facilities.

While primarily concerned with the

1965 Policy Statement on commercial

broadcast hearings [1 FCC 2d 393

(1965)], the Commission noted in

Paragraph 39 of the 1992 NPRM that the

standard used in noncommercial

educational (‘‘NCE’’) proceedings was

‘‘vague’’ and difficult to apply. The

Commission ‘‘tentatively concluded’’

that the standard should be eliminated,

and invited comments on: (1) whether a

modified version of the ‘‘point system’’

proposed for commercial applicants in

the 1992 NPRM should be adopted for

NCE applicants; (2) whether the criteria

used to select commercial applicants are

relevant in NCE proceedings; and (3)

whether a different comparative

approach should be followed for stateowned public broadcasters as opposed

to other NCE applicants.

2. Six commenters responded to the

1992 NPRM. Examination of the

comments leads the Commission to

conclude that the comments received

may not be representative of the full

range of actual and potential NCE

station operators. Furthermore, while

most commenters agree on several

points, only two commenters described

detailed alternatives to the current

criteria, and those proposals are widely

divergent.

3. For these reasons, the Commission

believes it appropriate to seek

additional comments regarding both the

existing NCE comparative criteria and

the two alternatives already submitted.

In order to focus the comments and

encourage beneficial input, the

Commission lists eight specific

questions upon which input is sought.

4. Finally, the Commission has

imposed a partial freeze on the

processing of mutually exclusive NCE

applications until it has adopted new or

revised NCE comparative criteria: as of

the release date of this Notice, the

Commission will not designate mutually

exclusive NCE applications for

comparative hearing. Additionally,

presiding Administrative Law Judges,

the Review Board, and the Commission

will no longer issue decisions in

pending hearing proceedings involving

competing NCE applicants where those

decisions would rely upon the existing

NCE comparative criteria. The Judges,

Board, and Commission will, however,

continue to encourage and, where

appropriate, approve settlements among

NCE applicants now involved in hearing

proceedings provided such settlements

comply with current Commission

policies governing those agreements.

5. The Commission is sensitive to the

need to resolve the issues presented in

this proceeding as quickly as possible.

It has therefore established a short

comment and reply period and will act

expeditiously once the comment cycle

is completed.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

Administrative practice and

procedure.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–7121 Filed 3–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95–32, RM–8545]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Parker

and Port St. Joe, Florida

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document requests

comments on a petition filed by

Southern Broadcasting Companies, Inc.,

licensee of Station WPBH, Channel

233C, Port St. Joe, Florida, requesting

the reallotment of Channel 233C from

Port St. Joe, Florida, to Parker, Florida,

and the modification of its license to

specify Parker as its community of

license, in accordance with Section

1.420(i) of the Commission’s rules. The

coordinates for Channel 233C at Parker

are North Latitude 29–49–09 and West

Longitude 85–15–34.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before May 11, 1995,and reply

comments on or before May 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

In addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Gary S. Smithwick, Shaun A.

Maher, Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C.,

1990 M Street, NW, Suite 510,

Washington, D.C. 20036 (Attorneys for

Petitioner).