22008 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Proposed Rules

insulation, coke, pitch and cathode

waste.

In the Spring of 1983, the presence of

cyanide compounds was detected in the

ground water at the Martin Marietta

facility. The site was proposed for

inclusion on the NPL in October 1984.

On June 10, 1986 the Site was placed on

the NPL.

In September 1985, MMC and EPA

entered into a Consent Order to conduct

a remedial investigation/feasibility

study (RI/FS) for the Site. On September

29, 1988, EPA signed a Record of

Decision (ROD) that addressed the

potential sources of contamination as

identified in the RI/FS. The selected

remedial action in the ROD included the

following components:

• Consolidate on-Site residual

cathode waste and fill material into the

existing Landfill;

• Cap the existing Landfill in place

with a multi-media cap meeting

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) performance criteria;

• Place a soil cover over two Sludge

Ponds;

• Plug and abandon nearby

production wells and connect users to

the City of The Dalles water supply

system;

• Collect and treat leachate generated

from the Landfill;

• Recover and treat contaminated

ground water from a perched zone near

the Unloading Area portion of the Site;

• Prepare ground-water quality

monitoring and contingency plans to

perform additional recovery of ground

water in the event that further

contamination is detected above health

based standards; and

• Implement institutional controls

including deed restrictions and fencing,

to assure that the remedial action will

protect human health and the

environment during and after

implementation.

An Explanation of Significant

Differences (ESD) was signed by EPA

Region 10 on September 23, 1994. The

ESD documented modifications to

remedial actions which were

anticipated in the ROD, and an addition

to the remedial action which was not

anticipated in the ROD.

Changes to the ROD which are

documented in the ESD include the

following:

• The ROD anticipated that the

volume of leachate generated from the

Landfill would be reduced to a

negligible flow within five years.

However, since the signing of the ROD,

the leachate flow rate has not decreased

significantly. As a result, the leachate

will have to be treated for a longer term

than expected.

• The ROD also required treatment of

contaminated ground water in an area

known as the Unloading Area.

Additional ground-water information

which was collected since the ROD, has

made it unnecessary to treat the ground

water in the Unloading Area.

C. Characterization of Risk

Prior to remediation, the preliminary

environmental pathways of concern

related to the wastes from the aluminum

reduction facility were ground water

and on-Site soils.

The remedial action commenced on

August 29, 1989 and consisted of the

following activities:

• Consolidation and capping of

wastes and debris from three former

operating units.

• Excavation and consolidation of

cathodic wastes into the Landfill, and

placement of a multi-layered RCRA

performance cap over the Landfill.

• Construction of a Leachate

Collection System and Cyanide

Destruction Treatment System to collect

and transfer any generated leachate from

the Landfill for treatment.

• Abandonment of four potable water

wells in the vicinity of the Site, and

connecting their users to the municipal

supply.

• Implementation of institutional

controls.

• Implementation of a ground-water

monitoring program.

On-Site containment of contaminated

soils and debris has reduced exposure

and inhibited the source of groundwater contamination. Analytical data

based on five years of ground-water

monitoring following the remedial

action indicate concentrations of

contaminants of concern do not exceed

ROD cleanup levels.

All pathways by which environmental

receptors could potentially be exposed

to Site-related contaminants have been

eliminated.

Since hazardous substances will

remain on Site, operation and

maintenance activities will continue,

and institutional controls will remain in

effect. A long-term ground-water

monitoring program has been

implemented at the Site. In addition, the

Site will continue to be subject to

periodic five-year reviews to ensure that

the remedy remains protective of human

health and the environment.

D. Public Participation

Community input has been sought by

EPA Region 10 throughout the cleanup

process for the Site. Community

relations activities have included public

meetings prior to signing of the ROD,

several public notices in local

newspapers, and routine publication of

progress fact sheets. A copy of the

Deletion Docket can be reviewed by the

public at the Dalles/Wasco County

Library or the EPA Region 10 Superfund

Records Center. The Deletion Docket

includes this Notice, the ROD, ESD,

Remedial Action Construction Report,

Preliminary Site Close-Out Report, and

Final Site Close-Out Report. EPA Region

10 will also announce the availability of

the Deletion Docket for public review in

a local newspaper and informational

fact sheet.

One of the three criteria for deletion

specifies that EPA may delete a site

from the NPL if ‘‘responsible parties or

other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required’’.

EPA, with the concurrence of DEQ,

believes that this criterion for deletion

has been met. Ground water and soil

data from the Site confirm that the ROD

cleanup goals have been achieved. It is

concluded that there is no significant

threat to human health or the

environment and, therefore, no further

remedial action is necessary.

Subsequently, EPA is proposing

deletion of this Site from the NPL.

Documents supporting this action are

available from the docket.

Dated: May 2, 1996.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

[FR Doc. 96–11756 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 96–98, DA 96–700]

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions in the

Telecommunications Act of 1996;

Increase in Page Limits for Comments

and Reply Comments on Proposed

Rule

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On April 19, 1996, the

Commission adopted and released a

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

to implement provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 that

address local competition. In addition to

seeking comment on substantive rules,

the NPRM established a limit of

seventy-five (75) pages for the initial

round of comments and thirty-five (35)

pages for reply comments. Exhibits,

appendices, and affidavits of expert
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Proposed Rules 22009

witnesses are counted towards these

page limits. In response to motions filed

by GTE Service Corporation and the

Consumer Federation of America, the

Commission hereby increases the limit

for initial comments from 75 to 120

pages and the limit for replies from 35

to 50 pages. In addition, the

Commission expands the exclusion

from these page limits to include any

technical diagrams submitted by

commenters in addition to the

previously excluded documents. These

modifications are intended to permit the

development of the best possible record

in light of the statutory deadline.

DATES: Comments on all sections of the

NPRM other than Dialing Parity,

Number Administration, Public Notice

of Technical Changes, and Access to

Rights of Way, must be submitted on or

before May 16, 1996. Reply Comments

must be filed on or before May 30, 1996.

Comments on the remaining sections

must be submitted on or before May 20,

1996. Reply comments for these sections

must be submitted on or before June 3,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 222, Washington, D.C. 20554,

with a copy to Janice Myles of the

Common Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Room 544, Washington, D.C.

20554. A copy of Comments and Reply

Comments on Dialing Parity, Number

Administration, Public Notice of

Technical Changes, and Access to

Rights of Way should be submitted to

Gloria Shambley of the Network

Services Division, Common Carrier

Bureau, 2000 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties should

also file one copy of any documents

filed in this docket with the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

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

Washington, D.C. 20037. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 239,

Washington, D.C. 20554. Parties are also

asked to submit comments and reply

comments on diskette. Such diskette

submissions would be in addition to

and not a substitute for the formal filing

requirements addressed above. Parties

submitting diskettes should submit

them to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Room 544, Washington, D.C. 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

Secretary, a copy of any comments on

the information collections contained

herein should be remitted to Dorothy

Conway, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 234, 1919 M Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 or via the

Internet to dconway@fcc.gov, and to

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725—17th Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to fainlt@al.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kalpak Gude at (202) 418–1580,

Common Carrier Bureau, Policy and

Program Planning Division.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Adopted: May 7, 1996

Released: May 7, 1996

By the Chief, Common Carrier Bureau:

1. On April 19, 1996, the Commission

released a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (Notice) in CC Docket No.

96–98 to implement the local

competition provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Implementation of the Local

Competition Provisions of the

Telecommunications Act of 1996,

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC

Docket No. 96–98, FCC 96–182, 61 FR

18311 (April 25, 1996). The NPRM

provided that comments were to be no

longer than seventy-five (75) pages and

that reply comments were to be no

longer than thirty-five (35) pages,

including exhibits, appendices, and

affidavits of expert witnesses. Empirical

economic studies and copies of relevant

state orders were not to be counted

against these page limits. The NPRM

required parties to file comments by

May 16, 1996 and reply comments by

May 30, 1996. The NPRM established

separate comment and reply dates for

issues regarding Dialing Parity, Number

Administration, Notice of Technical

Changes, and Access to Rights of Way.

Nothing in this order alters or affects

filing procedures regarding those issues.

2. On May 1, 1996, GTE Service

Corporation (GTE) and the Consumer

Federation of America (CFA) filed

motions for extension of time. GTE

Motion for Extension of Time and for

Waiver of Page Limits (filed May 1,

1996); CFA Request for Extension of

Time (filed May 1, 1996). GTE argued

that, in light of the number of issues to

be addressed, the inclusion of

appendices in the page limits, the 35

page limit for replies, and the 14 day

time period for replies, will preclude

development of the most helpful and

informative record. Among other things,

GTE emphasized the difficulty of

reviewing the record and filing reply

comments within 14 days. GTE urged

the Commission to modify the comment

filing procedures to provide that: (1)

Exhibits, appendices, and affidavits not

be counted against the page limits; (2)

the page limit for replies be 50 pages;

and (3) the date for filing reply

comments be increased from 14 to 21

days after the comment due date, i.e.,

June 6, 1996.

3. CFA argued that this proceeding

and the universal service proceeding are

inextricably linked, and that the limited

comment periods in this proceeding

would have a disproportionate negative

effect on the ability of public interest

groups to file comments. Federal-State

Joint Board on Universal Service, Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking and Order

Establishing Joint Board, CC Docket No.

96–45, FCC 96–93, 61 FR 10499 (March

14, 1996). CFA argued that large

telecommunications companies with

substantial resources would have less

difficulty participating in both

proceedings, while public interest

groups may be forced to either file

comments which are less than complete

or not file comments at all. CFA asserted

that this would result in an incomplete

record. CFA requested the Commission

to extend the time to file comments

until June 13, 1996 and the time for

reply comments until July 3, 1996.

4. In light of concerns expressed by

the parties, and in the interest of

building the best record possible under

the existing circumstances, the page

limitations are modified as follows: (1)

Comments must be no longer than one

hundred twenty (120) pages and reply

comments no longer than fifty (50)

pages; (2) in addition to empirical

economic studies and copies of relevant

state orders, technical diagrams will not

count against these page limitations;

and (3) an additional 4 copies of

comments and reply comments must be

sent to Janice Myles of the Common

Carrier Bureau, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Room 544, Washington, DC 20554. We

decline to adopt GTE’s request that

exhibits, appendices and affidavits be

excluded from the page limit since we

believe that this could easily be

tantamount to removing the page

limitations altogether. In lieu of this, we

are increasing the page limit for

comments substantially, from 75 to 120

pages. We are also increasing the page

limit for replies to 50 pages as requested

by GTE.

5. We deny the GTE and CFA requests

for extension of the dates for filing

comments and/or replies. Although the

current pleading schedule is relatively

compressed given the scope of the

issues involved, we do not believe that

we can extend the filing dates without

compromising the Commission’s ability

to meet the implementation schedule

mandated by Congress.
22010 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 93 / Monday, May 13, 1996 / Proposed Rules

6. In order to facilitate development of

the best possible record within existing

constraints, we stress the need for

interested parties to present their

positions fully in their initial comments.

We emphasize that the purpose of reply

comments is to permit parties to

respond to the original comments. 47

CFR § 1.415(c).

7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the

motion for extension of time and for

waiver of page limits filed by GTE

Service Corporation is granted to the

extent indicated above and otherwise

denied.

8. It is further ordered that the request

for extension of time filed by the

Consumer Federation of America is

denied.

Federal Communications Commission.

Regina M. Keeney,

Chief, Common Carrier Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–11965 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapters 1 and 2

[FAR Case 96–308]

Federal Acquisition Regulation;

Implementation of Commercially

Available Off-the-Shelf Item

Acquisition Provisions of the Federal

Acquisition Reform Act

AGENCIES: Department of Defense,

General Services Administration, and

National Aeronautics and Space

Administration.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Acquisition

Regulatory Council is soliciting

comments regarding the implementation

of section 4203 of the Federal

Acquisition Reform Act (Pub. L. 104–

106) (the Act) with respect to

Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf

Item Acquisitions. The Act requires the

FAR to list provisions of law that are

inapplicable to contracts for the

acquisition of commercially available

off-the-shelf items. Certain laws have

already been determined to be

inapplicable to all commercial items as

a result of the implementation of the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of

1994 (see FAR 12.503). The additional

provisions of law that could be

determined inapplicable to

commercially available off-the-shelf

items are listed under

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

to the address shown below by June 28,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit comments to the FAR

Secretariat, General Services

Administration, 18th and F Sts. NW,

Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR

Case 96–308.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAR

Secretariat, (202) 501–4755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 15 U.S.C.

637(d) (2) and (3), Utilization of Small

Business Concerns (see 52.219–8); 15

U.S.C. 637(d)(4), Small Business

Subcontracting Plan (see 52.219–9); 15

U.S.C. 637(a)(14), Limitation on

Subcontracting (see 52.219–14); 19

U.S.C. 1202, Tariff Act of 1930 (see

52.225–10); 19 U.S.C. 1309, Supplies for

Certain Vessels and Aircraft (see

52.225–10); 19 U.S.C. 2701, et seq.,

Authority to Grant Duty Free Treatment

(see 52.225–10); 29 U.S.C. 793,

Affirmative Action for Handicapped

Workers (see 52.222–36); 38 U.S.C.

4212, Affirmative Action for Special

Disabled Vietnam Era Veterans (see

52.222–35); 38 U.S.C. 4212(d)(1),

Employment Reports on Special

disabled Veterans and Veterans of the

Vietnam Era (see 52.222–37); 41 U.S.C.

10, Buy American Act—Supplies (see

52.225–3); 41 U.S.C. 253d, Validation of

Proprietary Data Restrictions (see

52.227–14); 41 U.S.C. 253g and 10

U.S.C. 2482, Prohibition on Limiting

Subcontractor Direct Sales to the United

States (see 52.203–6); 41 U.S.C. 254(b)

and 10 U.S.C. 2306a, Truth in

Negotiations Act (see 15.804); 41 U.S.C.

254d(c) and 10 U.S.C. 2513(c),

Examination of Records of Contractor

(see 52.215–2); 41 U.S.C. 418a, Rights in

Technical Data (see 52.227–14); 41

U.S.C. 442, Cost Accounting Standards

(see FAR Appendix B, 48 CFR Chapter

99); 41 U.S.C. 423(e)(3), Administrative

Actions (see 3.104); 46 U.S.C. 1241(b),

Transportation in American Vessels of

Government Personnel and Certain

Cargo (see 52.247–64); 49 U.S.C. 40118,

Fly American Provisions (see 52.247–

63); For purposes of this notice, a

‘‘commercially available off-the-shelf

item’’ means—

(1) a commercial item as defined in

FAR 2.101;

(2) an item sold in substantial

quantities in the commercial

marketplace; and

(3) an item is offered to the

Government, without modification, in

the same form in which it is sold in the

commercial marketplace. This does not

include bulk cargo, as defined in 46

U.S.C. App. 1702, such as agricultural

and petroleum products. The FAR

Council is requesting any interested

parties to provide advance comments

on:

(1) the definition of ‘‘commercially

available off-the-shelf item’’ cited above.

(2) whether the above cited list of

statutory provisions that could be

determined inapplicable to commercial

off-the-shelf items is complete.

(3) whether the specific provisions of

law should be determined to be

inapplicable. Comments received will

be considered in the development of

proposed or interim rules. In addition,

a 60-day public comment period will be

provided once proposed and/or interim

FAR rules are drafted. Noted that agency

specific statutory provisions will be

addressed in separates Federal Register

notices.

Dated: May 7, 1996.

Edward C. Loeb,

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 96–11862 Filed 5–10–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 537

[Docket No. 96–38, Notice 01]

RIN 2127–AG00

Automotive Fuel Economy; SemiAnnual Reports

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice proposes various

revisions to the required form and

contents of the semi-annual reports

which automobile manufacturers are

statutorily required to submit under the

Federal automotive fuel economy

program. It is intended that these

revisions will reduce the paperwork

burdens imposed on manufacturers

without inhibiting the agency’s ability

to comply with its statutory

requirements. NHTSA undertakes this

action as part of its effort to implement

the President’s Regulatory Reinvention

Initiative to make regulations easier to

understand and apply.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to

the docket and notice number set forth

above and be submitted to: Docket