[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50435-50439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24415]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5308-2]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') which is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, constitutes this
list.
This rule adds 8 new sites to the NPL, 6 to the General Superfund
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or
``the Agency'') in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what
CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall
be October 30, 1995.
ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see
``Information Available to the Public'' in Section I of the
``Supplementary Information'' portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Keidan, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (mail code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund
Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
II. Contents of This Final Rule
III. Executive Order 12866
IV. Unfunded Mandates
V. Governors' Concurrence
I. Introduction
Background
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law No. 99-499,
stat. 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(``NCP''), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to
CERCLA section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,
1981). The NCP sets forth the guidelines and procedures needed to
respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. EPA has revised the NCP on
several occasions. The most recent comprehensive revision was on March
8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA requires that the NCP include
``criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened
releases throughout the United States for the purpose of taking
remedial action * * * and, to the extent practicable taking into
account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases. 42 USC 9601(23). ``Remedial''
actions are those ``consistent with permanent remedy, taken instead of
or in addition to removal actions * * *.'' 42 USC 9601(24).
Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA
has promulgated a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. That list, which is Appendix
B of 40 CFR Part 300, is the National Priorities List (``NPL'').
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
``releases'' and as a list of the highest priority ``facilities.''
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also requires that the NPL be revised at
least annually. A site may undergo remedial action financed by the
Trust Fund established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the
``Superfund'') only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the
NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)
placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be
expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the
releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
The purpose of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are
priorities for further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is
broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release
has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process
itself is not intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such
facilities or releases.
Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not
assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property.
See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above
and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not believe it
is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property, supporting
information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after a party
receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
Three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for possible remedial
action are included in the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c). Under 40 CFR
300.425(c)(1), a site may be included on the NPL if it scores
sufficiently high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA
promulgated as Appendix A of 40 CFR part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55
FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS partly in response to
CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised HRS evaluates four
pathways: ground water, surface water, soil
[[Page 50436]]
exposure, and air. The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances to pose a
threat to human health or the environment. As a matter of Agency
policy, those sites that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible
for the NPL.
Under a second mechanism for adding sites to the NPL, each State
may designate a single site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS
score. This mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2),
requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include within the
100 highest priorities, one facility designated by each State
representing the greatest danger to public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in the State.
The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use
its remedial authority (available only at NPL sites) than to use its
removal authority to respond to the release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on
May 26, 1995 (60 FR 27896).
The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January
29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL. EPA is not the lead agency at these sites, and its role at
such sites is accordingly less extensive than at other sites. The
Federal Facilities Section includes facilities at which EPA is not the
lead agency.
Facility (Site) Boundaries
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (as the mere identification of releases), for it to do so.
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list national priorities
among the known ``releases or threatened releases.'' Thus, the purpose
of the NPL is merely to identify releases that are priorities for
further evaluation. Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined
to include any area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to
be located'' (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not
intended to define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or
releases. Of course, HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based
will, to some extent, describe which release is at issue. That is, the
NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS
analysis (including noncontiguous releases evaluated under the NPL
aggregation policy, described at 48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).
When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or
releases) encompassed within the listing. The approach generally used
is to delineate a geographical area (usually the area within the
installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to
that area. As a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with that
area, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not the
``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists of all
contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any
other location to which contamination from that area has come to be
located.
While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g.,
the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property owned by the
particular party, the site properly understood is not limited to that
property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant
migration), and conversely may not occupy the full extent of the
property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of the identified
property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of the ``site'').
The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of
any specific property that may give the site its name, and the name
itself should not be read to imply that this site is coextensive with
the entire area within the property boundary of the facility or plant.
The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at
the time of listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help
identify the geographic location of the contamination. For example, the
``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is
responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat
presented by a release'' will be determined by a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was
originally thought, as more is learned about the source and the
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not
be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover
the full extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located''
before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site.
Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be expected to change
over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe the
boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research
into the extent of the contamination expands the apparent boundaries of
the release. Further, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it
does not assign liability to any party or to the owner of any specific
property. See Report of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted
above and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983). If a party does not
believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of property,
supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any time after
a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible party.
Deletions/Cleanups
EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(e). To date, the Agency has deleted 84 sites from the General
Superfund Section of the NPL.
EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR
12142, March 2, 1993). Sites qualify for the CCL when:
(1) any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not
final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
[[Page 50437]]
(2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited
to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional
controls); or
(3) the site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal significance.
In addition to the 83 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (the Waste Research and Reclamation
site was deleted based on deferral to another program and is not
considered cleaned up), an additional 221 sites are also in the NPL
CCL. Thus, as of September 1995, the CCL consists of 304 sites.
Cleanups at sites on the NPL do not reflect the total picture of
Superfund accomplishments. As of August, 1995, EPA had commenced 679
removal actions at NPL sites, and 2,108 removal actions at non-NPL
sites. Information on removals is available from the Superfund hotline.
Action In This Notice
This final rule adds 8 sites to the NPL, 6 to the General Superfund
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. Seven of these sites
are added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.5 or greater and one
is added based on the ATSDR Health Advisory Criteria. This notice also
drops one site from proposal to the NPL. This action results in an NPL
of 1,238 sites, 1,083 in the General Superfund Section and 155 in the
Federal Facilities Section. With the action of a proposed rule
published in the Federal Register issue of October 2, 1995, an
additional 52 sites are proposed and are awaiting final agency action,
47 in the General Superfund Section and 5 in the Federal Facilities
Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,290.
Based on comments received on the Plymouth Avenue Landfill site in
Deland, Florida, EPA recalculated the HRS score and found that it had
dropped below 28.5. Consequently, EPA is not taking final action and is
withdrawing the Plymouth Avenue Landfill site from proposal to the NPL
at this time.
Information Available to the Public
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460, 703/603-8917 (Please note
this is the mailing address only. If you wish to visit the HQ Docket to
view documents, see viewing address above.)
II. Contents of This Notice
This notice promulgates final rules to add 8 sites to the NPL, 6 to
the General Superfund Section (Table 1) and 2 to the Federal Facilities
Section (Table 2). The following tables present the sites in this rule
arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group
number. Group numbers are determined by arranging the NPL by rank and
dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a site in Group 4 has
a score that falls within the range of scores covered by the fourth
group of 50 sites on the NPL.
National Priorities List Final Rule--General Superfund Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS................................ Ace Services.................................................................. Colby.................. 5/6
ME................................ West Site/Hows Corner......................................................... Plymouth............... 5/6
NJ................................ Horseshoe Road................................................................ Sayreville............. 4
TN................................ Tennessee Products............................................................ Chattanooga............ NA
TX................................ RSR Corporation............................................................... Dallas................. 5/6
VI................................ Tutu Wellfield................................................................ Tutu................... 5/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Listed: 6.
National Priorities List Final Rule--Federal Facilities Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County Group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD................................ Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center...................................... Indian Head............ 5/6
PA................................ Willow Grove Naval Air and Air Reserve Station................................ Willow Grove........... 5/6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Listed: 2.
Public Comments
EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this
notice. Based on comments received on the proposed sites, as well as
investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment),
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate.
EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any
score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the
``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final
Rule--September 1995.''
III. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
IV. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, section
205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves.
The Headquarters and Regional public dockets for the NPL contain
documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the site in this
final rule. The dockets are available for viewing, by appointment only,
after the appearance of this notice. The hours of operation for the
Headquarters docket are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Docket
for hours.
[[Page 50438]]
Addresses and phone numbers for the Headquarters and Regional
dockets follow.
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office,
Crystal Gateway #1, 12th Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA, 703/603-8917, (Please note this is viewing address only.
Do not mail documents to this address.)
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866,
212/637-4435
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/597-7904
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta,
GA 30365, 404/347-4216
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management
Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886-6214
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-MA,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101, 913/551-7224
Greg Oberley, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
CO 80202-2466, 303/294-7598
Rachel Loftin, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
CA 94105, 415/744-2347
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop HW-114, Seattle, WA 98101 206/553-2103
For the sites added to the NPL based on an HRS score of 28.5 or
greater, the Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score
sheets for the final sites; Documentation Records for the sites
describing the information used to compute the scores; pertinent
information regarding statutory requirements or EPA listing policies
that affect the sites; and a list of documents referenced in each of
the Documentation Records. For the site being listed based on ATSDR
Health Advisory criteria, the Headquarters docket contains the health
advisory issued by ATSDR and other supporting documentation. For all of
the final sites, the Headquarters docket contains comments received;
and the Agency's responses to those comments. The Agency's responses
are contained in the ``Support Document for the Revised National
Priorities List Final Rule--September 1995.''
A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL
listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic
impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking
docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.
The Regional docket contains all the information in the
Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score, when the HRS is used, for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional dockets.
Interested parties may view documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters of Regional Dockets, or copies may be requested from the
Headquarters or Regional Dockets. An informal written request, rather
than a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
If you wish to obtain documents by mail from EPA Headquarters Docket,
the mailing address is as follows: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters
U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office (Mail Code 5201G) the objectives of the
rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the
final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected
small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning of
Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is
because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties
upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It
does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action,
nor does it require any action by a private party or determine its
liability for site response costs. Costs that arise out of site
responses result form site-by-site decisions about what actions to
take, not directly from the act of listing itself. Therefore, today's
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
V. Governor's Concurrence
On July 27, 1995, Congress enacted Public Law (P.L.) 104-19, which
made emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 1995. Section 1006 of P.L. 104-19
provides that EPA may not use funds made available for fiscal year 1995
for listing or to list any additional facilities on the National
Priorities List * * * unless the Administrator receives a written
request to propose for listing or to list a facility from the Governor
of the State in which the facility is located * * *.
EPA has received letters from the appropriate governors requesting that
the Agency list on the NPL all the facilities in this final rule. These
letters are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Air pollution control, Chemicals, Environmental Protection,
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources,
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: September 25, 1995.
Elliott P. Laws,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
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 to appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the
table heading and by adding the following sites by State and in
alphabetical order:
[[Page 50439]]
Table 1.--General Superfund Section, September 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State site name City/County Notes(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
KS Ace Services................................................... Colby..................... ................
* * * * * *
*
ME West Site/Hows Corners......................................... Plymouth.................. ................
* * * * * *
*
NJ Horseshoe Road................................................. Sayreville................ ................
* * * * * *
*
TN Tennessee Products............................................. Chattanooga............... A.
* * * * * *
*
TX RSR Corp....................................................... Dallas.................... ................
* * * * * *
*
VI Tutu Wellfield................................................. Tutu...................... ................
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Table 2 to appendix B to part 300 is amended by revising the
table heading by adding the following sites by State and in
alphabetical order:
Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section, September 1995
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State site name City/County Notes(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
MD Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center....................... Indian Head............... ................
* * * * * *
*
PA Willow Grove Naval Air & Air Res. Stn.......................... Willow Grove.............. ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A=Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS
score need not be > 28.50).
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
[FR Doc. 95-24415 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-10-P