35962 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

with the ‘‘no NOX increase’’ approach

taken toward RFG in section 211(k). API

also notes that the 1991 negotiated

rulemaking agreement does not address

a Phase II NOX reduction, and that the

focus of debate was whether de minimis

increases in NOX would satisfy the no

NOX increase standard. For discussion

of these arguments in the RFG final rule,

see, for example, 59 FR 7744–7745.

B. Air Quality Benefits

API’s second argument is that the

ozone benefits of the Phase II RFG NOX

standard are overstated. API argues that

the primary basis for the Phase II NOX

standard is ozone attainment, and cites

data from EPA’s Trends Report (U.S.

EPA, National Air Quality and

Emissions Trends Report 1993, EPA

454/R–94–026, October 1994 at 6.) that

progress toward ozone attainment has

been made. API also notes that the Act

imposes substantial obligations on states

to attain ozone standards.

API claims that in promulgating the

Phase II RFG NOX standard, EPA

emphasized those parts of studies (such

as Rethinking the Ozone Problem in

Urban and Regional Air Pollution,

National Research Council, National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1991)

that showed NOX to be an effective

ozone control strategy, while

discounting those which indicate that

NOX control can be counterproductive.

API discusses EPA’s authority under

CAA section 182 to grant waivers from

certain CAA local NOX reduction

requirements. The petition states that

the section 182(f) waiver requirement

recognizes that local NOX reductions

may not be necessary or helpful to

attainment of the ozone standard.

Although the overwhelming majority of

section 182(f) waivers have been granted

because additional NOX reductions are

not needed for attainment of the ozone

NAAQS, the petition notes that, in a few

cases, photochemical modeling has

indicated that increased NOX reductions

may exacerbate peak ozone in an urban

core. The petition cites three cases

where modeling has shown that

increased NOX reductions may

exacerbate peak ozone concentrations:

Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston, three

of the nine cities required to use RFG.

API notes the conditional nature of

section 182(f) waivers.

API argues that given continued

progress toward ozone NAAQS

attainment, imposition of Phase II NOX

reductions applicable in all RFG areas is

‘‘plainly incongruous’’ with the granting

of waivers under section 182(f). API also

argues that EPA’s claim that air quality

benefits in addition to reduced ozone

will result from the Phase II NOX

standard (e.g., less acid rain, reduced

nitrate deposition, and improved

visibility), is speculative. These

arguments are discussed in the RFG

final rule at, for example, 59 FR 7746

and 7751.

C. Cost-effectiveness

API argues that EPA has understated

the impact of the Phase II NOX

reduction standard on costs and refiner

flexibility. API claims that if more

accurate sulfur removal

(‘‘desulfurization’’) costs were

employed, EPA’s cost per ton of NOX

removed would increase to over

$10,000. Moreover, API argues that

EPA’s cost effectiveness analysis does

not take into account that NOX

reductions in some areas do not

contribute to ozone attainment; API

claims that if the benefit of NOX

reductions in Chicago, Milwaukee and

Houston, which have been granted

conditional section 182(f) waivers, is

reduced to zero or less, EPA’s costeffectiveness estimate would rise from

$5,000 to $7,500 per ton.

API also argues that EPA should have

included a more extensive array of

stationary source NOX control measures

that compare favorably to EPA’s costeffectiveness estimate, particularly if

that estimate is changed in light of API’s

arguments on desulfurization costs and

reduced ozone benefits.

Finally, API argues that major

stationary sources offer more potential

for overall reduction in air pollution,

and that the cost-effectiveness of Phase

II NOX controls is higher than stationary

combustion sources with lower

potential for overall NOX reduction. API

argues that, unlike mobile source

control, major stationary source control

can be targeted to avoid the cost of NOX

control where it is not needed and any

adverse effect on ozone because of

atmospheric chemistry. API’s arguments

are discussed in the RFG final rule at,

for example, 59 FR 7752–7754.

III. Request for Comment

EPA requests comment on all the

issues raised in API’s petition for

reconsideration. EPA is also interested

in the potential impact of a delay in

implementation or elimination of the

Phase II RFG NOX standard on state

implementation plans for attaining

compliance with the ozone NAAQS.

EPA solicits new information on costs

and air quality benefits associated with

the Phase II RFG NOX reduction

standard, including non-ozone air

quality benefits.

IV. Conclusion

After considering all public comments

and any other relevant information

available to EPA, the agency will make

a decision regarding API’s petition for

reconsideration.

Dated: June 28, 1996.

Mary D. Nichols,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and

Radiation.

[FR Doc. 96–17318 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5533–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Contingency Plan;

National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Carter

Lee Lumber Company Superfund Site

from the National Priorities List (NPL).

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of

the Carter Lee Lumber Company Site in

Indiana from the National Priorities List

(NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of 40

CFR Part 300 which is the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Contingency

Plan (NCP), which 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 EPA and

the State of Indiana, because it has been

determined that Responsible Parties

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required. Moreover,

EPA and the State of Indiana have

determined that remedial actions

conducted at the site to date remain

protective of public health, welfare, and

the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Orr at (312) 886–7576 (SR–6J),

Remedial Project Manager, Superfund

Division, U.S. EPA—Region V, 77 West

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.

Information on the site is available at

the local information repository located

at: Hawthorn Community Center, 2440

West Ohio Street, Indianapolis, IN and

the offices of the Indiana Department of

Environmental management, 100 N.

Senate Avenue, N1255, Indianapolis,

IN. Requests for comprehensive copies

of documents should be directed

formally to the Regional Docket Office.

The contact for the Regional Docket

Office is Jan Pfundheller (H–7J), U.S.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 132 / Tuesday, July 9, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 35963

EPA, Region V, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,

Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 353–5821.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is Carter Lee

Lumber Company Site located in

Indianapolis, Indiana. A Notice of Intent

to Delete for this site was published

May 8, 1996 (61 FR 20785). The closing

date for comments on the Notice of

Intent to Delete was June 7, 1996. EPA

received no comments and therefore no

Responsiveness Summary was prepared.

The EPA identifies sites which appear

to present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Hazardous Substance

Response Trust Fund (Fund-) financed

remedial actions. Section 300.425(e)(3)

of the NCP states that Fund-financed

actions may be taken at sites deleted

from the NPL in the unlikely event that

conditions at the site warrant such

action. Deletion of a site from the NPL

does not affect responsible party

liability or impede agency efforts to

recover costs associated with response

efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous Waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 24, 1996.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA,

Region V.

40 CFR part 300 is amended as

follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp.; p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 193.

Appendix B—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the Site ‘‘Carter

Lee Lumber Company Site,

Indianapolis, Indiana’’.

[FR Doc. 96–17322 Filed 7–8–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 42

[CGD 96–006]

RIN 2115–AF29

Extension of Great Lakes Load Line

Certificate

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: By this direct final rule, the

Coast Guard is revising the limit on the

number of days that a Great Lakes Load

Line Certificate extension may be

granted from 90 days to 365 days. This

action is taken to extend the Great Lakes

load line certificate interval from the

current 5 years and 90 days maximum

interval to a 6-year maximum interval.

DATES: This rule is effective on October

7, 1996, unless the Coast Guard receives

written adverse comments or written

notice of intent to submit adverse

comments on or before September 9,

1996. If such comments or notice are

received, the Coast Guard will withdraw

this direct final rule, and a timely notice

of withdrawal will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety

Council (G–LRA/3406) (CGD 96–006),

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100

Second Street SW., Washington, DC

20593–0001, or may be delivered to

room 3406 at the same address between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. The

telephone number is (202) 267–1477.

The Executive Secretary maintains the

public docket for this rulemaking.

Comments will become part of this

docket and will be available for

inspection or copying at room 3406,

U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, between

9:30 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

LCDR Mark R. DeVries, G–MOC, (202)

267–0009.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

Any comments must identify the

names and address of the person

submitting the comment, specify the

rulemaking docket (CGD 96–006) and

the specific section of this rule to which

each comment applies, and give the

reason for each specific comment.

Please submit two copies of all

comments and attachments in an

unbound format, no larger than 8+ by 11

inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. Persons wanting

acknowledgment of receipt of comments

should enclose stamped, self-addressed

postcards or envelopes.

Regulatory Information

The Coast Guard is publishing a direct

final rule, the procedures of which are

outlined in 33 CFR 1.05–55, because no

adverse comments are anticipated. If no

adverse comments or any written notice

of intent to submit adverse comment are

received within the specified comment

period, this rule will become effective as

stated in the DATES section. In that case,

approximately 30 days prior to the

effective date, the Coast Guard will

publish a notice in the Federal Register

stating that no adverse comment was

received and confirming that this rule

will become effective as scheduled.

However, if the Coast Guard receives

written adverse comment or written

notice of intent to submit adverse

comment, the Coast Guard will publish

a notice in the final rule section of the

Federal Register to announce

withdrawal of all or part of this direct

final rule. If adverse comments apply to

only part of this rule, and it is possible

to remove that part without defeating

the purpose of this rule, the Coast Guard

may adopt as final those parts of this

rule on which no adverse comments

were received. The part of this rule that

was the subject of adverse comment will

be withdrawn. If the Coast Guard

decides to proceed with a rulemaking

following receipt of adverse comments,

a separate notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPRM) will be published

and a new opportunity for comment

provided.

A comment is considered ‘‘adverse’’ if

the comment explains why this rule

would be inappropriate, including a

challenge to the rule’s underlying

premise or approach, or would be

ineffective or unacceptable without a

change.

Background and Purpose

Before 1973, the load line intervals for

vessels operating on the Great Lakes was

6 years in length. In 1973, the load line

regulations were revised and the 6-year

interval was reduced to 5 years with a

provision to allow for a 90-day

extension. The reduction in the interval

was because of the higher frequency and

shorter length of Great Lakes voyages,

the presumed safety risks resulting from

the increased amount of dockings, and

the Great Lakes climatic conditions.

This assumption has proven to be

incorrect. The Lake Carriers’

Association, whose membership

includes the operators of 59 U.S.-Flag

freightships on the Great Lakes, has