National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule No. 44, 20052-20059 [06-3667]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20052
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.’’ This proposed
rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers and food
retailers, not States. This action does not
alter the relationships or distribution of
power and responsibilities established
by Congress in the preemption
provisions of section 408(n)(4) of the
FFDCA. For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this
proposed rule does not have any ‘‘tribal
implications’’ as described in Executive
Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments (65 FR 67249, November
6, 2000). Executive Order 13175,
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that
have tribal implications’’ is defined in
the Executive order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office
of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
chapter I be amended as follows:
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.920 is amended by
revising the entry for Mono- and bis(1H, 1H, 2H, 2H- perfluoroalkyl)
phosphates where the alkyl group is
even numbered and in the C6-C12 range
in the table as follows:
§ 180.920 Inert ingredients used preharvest; exemptions from the requirement
of a tolerance.
***
Inert ingredients
Limits
*
*
Mono- and bis-(1H, 1H, 2H, 2H-perfluoroalkyl)
phosphates where the alkyl group is even numbered
and in the C6-C12 range
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Expires [insert date 18 months after the date of publication of the final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER] Not
more than 0.5% of pesticide formulation.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E6–5883 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am]
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Compensation, and Liability Act
AGENCY
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
40 CFR Part 300
Hazardous Substances Pollution
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0242, EPA–HQ–
Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list
SFUND–2006–0247, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006– of national priorities among the known
0250, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0252, EPA–
releases or threatened releases of
HQ–SFUND–2006–0255, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
hazardous substances, pollutants, or
2006–0258; FRL–8159–4]
contaminants throughout the United
RIN 2050–AD75
States. The National Priorities List
(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled
intended primarily to guide the
Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule
Environmental Protection Agency
No. 44
(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining
which sites warrant further
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
investigation. These further
Agency.
Uses
Defoaming agent.
investigations will allow EPA to assess
the nature and extent of public health
and environmental risks associated with
the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may
be appropriate. This rule proposes to
add four new sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section. This rule
also proposes to restore one site to the
NPL and withdraws one site from
proposal to the NPL.
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before June 19, 2006.
DATES:
Identify the appropriate
FDMS Docket Number from the table
below.
ADDRESSES:
FDMS DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Site name
City/state
ASARCO Taylor Springs ....................................................................
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant .....................................................
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek ........................................................
Ringwood Mines/Landfill .....................................................................
Matteo & Sons, Inc .............................................................................
Maunabo Urbano Public Wells ...........................................................
Taylor Springs, IL ............................
De Soto, KS .....................................
Gibbsboro, NJ ..................................
Ringwood, NJ ..................................
Thorofare, NJ ...................................
Maunabo, PR ...................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
FDMS docket ID number
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0255
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0258
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0242
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0252
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0247
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0250
19APP1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Submit your comments, identified by
the appropriate FDMS Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov
• Fax: (202) 566–0224
• Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles
or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket
Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery or Express Mail:
Send comments (no facsimiles or tapes)
to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room
B102, Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket’s normal hours of operation
(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday excluding Federal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
the appropriate FDMS Docket number
(see table above). EPA’s policy is that all
comments received will be included in
the public Docket without change and
may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov website is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, that
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public Docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional Docket addresses
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
and further details on their contents, see
section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public
Comment,’’ of the Supplementary
Information portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Terry Jeng, phone (703) 603–8852, State,
Tribal and Site Identification Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division;
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation (Mail Code
5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the
Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424–
9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What Is the NCP?
C. What Is the National Priorities List
(NPL)?
D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of
Sites?
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From
the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?
I. What Is the Construction Completion List
(CCL)?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I Review the Documents Relevant
to This Proposed Rule?
B. How Do I Access the Documents?
C. What Documents Are Available for
Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
D. What Documents Are Available for
Public Review at the Regional Dockets?
E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
F. What Happens to My Comments?
G. What Should I Consider When
Preparing My Comments?
H. May I Submit Comments After the
Public Comment Period Is Over?
I. May I View Public Comments Submitted
by Others?
J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites
Not Currently Proposed to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Proposal To Restore Site to the NPL
C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the
NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to
Executive Order 12866 Review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How Has EPA Complied With the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA)?
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20053
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed
Rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It
Applicable to This Proposed Rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health and
Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order
13211?
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
2. Does the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act Apply to This
Proposed Rule?
I. Background
A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
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 releases or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, and
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. CERCLA was
amended on October 17, 1986, by the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’), Public
Law 99–499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
B. What Is the NCP?
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
guidelines and procedures for
responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. EPA has
revised the NCP on several occasions.
The most recent comprehensive revision
was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section
105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
20054
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
includes ‘‘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 of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
C. What Is the National Priorities List
(NPL)?
The NPL is a list of national priorities
among the known or threatened releases
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United
States. The list, which is appendix B of
the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required
under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,
as amended by SARA. Section
105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of
‘‘releases’’ and the highest priority
‘‘facilities’’ and requires that the NPL be
revised at least annually. The NPL is
intended primarily to guide EPA in
determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and
extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a
release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is
only of limited significance, however, as
it does not assign liability to any party
or to the owner of any specific property.
Neither does placing a site on the NPL
mean that any remedial or removal
action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL
includes two sections, one of sites that
are generally evaluated and cleaned up
by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund
Section’’), and one of sites that are
owned or operated by other Federal
agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities
Section’’). With respect to sites in the
Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other
Federal agencies. 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 a Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score and
determining whether the facility is
placed on the NPL. At Federal Facilities
Section sites, EPA’s role is less
extensive than at other sites.
D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for
placing sites on the NPL for possible
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c)
of the NCP): (1) A site may be included
on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high
on the Hazard Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’),
that EPA promulgated as appendix A of
the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS
serves as a screening device to evaluate
the relative potential of uncontrolled
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants to pose a threat to human
health or the environment. 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 exposure, and air. As
a matter of Agency policy, those sites
that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS
are eligible for the NPL; (2) Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may
designate a single site as its top priority
to be listed on the NPL, without any
HRS score. This provision of CERCLA
requires that, to the extent practicable,
the NPL include one facility designated
by each State as the greatest danger to
public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is
set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism
for listing, included in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites
to be listed without any 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 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) and generally has updated it at
least annually.
E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
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).
(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those
‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,
taken instead of or in addition to
removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C.
9601(24).) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
appropriate authorities to respond to the
releases, including enforcement action
under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries
of Sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in
precise geographical terms; it would be
neither feasible nor consistent with the
limited purpose of the NPL (to identify
releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so.
Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is
broadly defined to include any area
where a hazardous substance 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 (if the HRS is used to list a
site) upon which the NPL placement
was based will, to some extent, describe
the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL
site would include all releases evaluated
as part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach
generally used to describe the relevant
release(s) is to delineate a geographical
area (usually the area within an
installation or plant boundaries) and
identify 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 identify the site, as well as any other
location where that contamination has
come to be located, or from where that
contamination came.
In other words, while geographic
terms are often used to designate the site
(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site’’) in terms
of the property owned by a 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 installation 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 name ‘‘Jones Co. plant
site,’’ does not imply that the Jones
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
company is responsible for the
contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the
‘‘nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release’’ will be
determined by a Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (‘‘RI/FS’’) as more
information is developed on site
contamination (40 CFR 300.5). 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(s) 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.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing
does not assign liability to any party or
to the owner of any specific property.
Thus, 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.
For these reasons, the NPL need not
be amended as further research reveals
more information about the location of
the contamination or release.
G. How Are Sites Removed From the
NPL?
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). This section also provides
that EPA shall consult with states on
proposed deletions and shall consider
whether any of the following criteria
have been met: (i) Responsible parties or
other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed
response has been implemented and no
further response action is required; or
(iii) The remedial investigation has
shown the release poses no significant
threat to public health or the
environment, and taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate.
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites
From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a
new policy to delete portions of NPL
sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
55465, November 1, 1995). Total site
cleanup may take many years, while
portions of the site may have been
cleaned up and available for productive
use.
I. What Is the Construction Completion
List (CCL)?
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).
Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no
legal significance.
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; (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. For the most upto-date information on the CCL, see
EPA’s Internet site at https://
www.epa.gov/superfund.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I Review the Documents
Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for
EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this rule are contained in public
Dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the
Regional offices and by electronic access
at https://www.regulations.gov (see
instructions in the ADDRESSES section
above).
B. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, in the Headquarters
or the Regional Dockets after the
publication of this proposed rule. The
hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays. Please contact the
Regional Dockets for hours.
The following is the contact
information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator,
Headquarters; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket
Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA
West, Room B102, Washington, DC
20004, 202/566–0276. (Please note this
is a visiting address only. Mail
comments to EPA Headquarters as
detailed at the beginning of this
preamble.)
The contact information for the
Regional Dockets is as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20055
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA,
NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center,
Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023;
617/918–1417.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR,
VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4343.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3
(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode
3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814–5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA,
KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta,
GA 30303; 404/562–8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI,
MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC–7J,
Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604;
312/353–5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM,
OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Mailcode 6SF–RA, Dallas,
TX 75202–2733; 214/665–7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO,
NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551–7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–2466; 303/312–
6463.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI,
NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/
972–3097.
Denise Baker, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mail Stop ECL–115, Seattle, WA
98101; 206/553–4303.
You may also request copies from
EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather
than a formal written request under the
Freedom of Information Act, should be
the ordinary procedure for obtaining
copies of any of these documents.
You may use the Docket at https://
www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket
(see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note
that there are differences between the
Headquarters Docket and the Regional
Dockets and those differences are
outlined below.
C. What Documents Are Available for
Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
The Headquarters Docket for this rule
contains the following for the sites
proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets;
Documentation Records describing the
information used to compute the score;
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
20056
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
information for any sites affected by
particular statutory requirements or EPA
listing policies; and a list of documents
referenced in the Documentation
Record.
D. What Documents Are Available for
Public Review at the Regional Dockets?
The Regional Dockets for this rule
contain all of the information in the
Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual
reference documents containing the data
principally relied upon and cited by
EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the
Regional Dockets.
E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
Comments must be submitted to EPA
Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the
ADDRESSES section. Please note that the
mailing addresses differ according to
method of delivery. There are two
different addresses that depend on
whether comments are sent by express
mail or by postal mail.
F. What Happens to My Comments?
EPA considers all comments received
during the comment period. Significant
comments will be addressed in a
support document that EPA will publish
concurrently with the Federal Register
document if, and when, the site is listed
on the NPL.
G. What Should I Consider When
Preparing My Comments?
Comments that include complex or
voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS
scoring, should point out the specific
information that EPA should consider
and how it affects individual HRS factor
values or other listing criteria
(Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas,
849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA
will not address voluminous comments
that are not specifically cited by page
number and referenced to the HRS or
other listing criteria. EPA will not
address comments unless they indicate
which component of the HRS
documentation record or what
particular point in EPA’s stated
eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I Submit Comments After the
Public Comment Period Is Over?
Generally, EPA will not respond to
late comments. EPA can only guarantee
that it will consider those comments
postmarked by the close of the formal
comment period. EPA has a policy of
generally not delaying a final listing
decision solely to accommodate
consideration of late comments.
I. May I View Public Comments
Submitted by Others?
During the comment period,
comments are placed in the
Headquarters Docket and are available
to the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis.
A complete set of comments will be
available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after
the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public
viewing in the electronic public Docket
at https://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public
Dockets system, select ‘‘search,’’ then
key in the appropriate Docket ID
number.
J. May I Submit Comments Regarding
Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties
have written to EPA concerning sites
that were not at that time proposed to
the NPL. If those sites are later proposed
to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,
resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal
comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the
period of formal proposal and comment
will not generally be included in the
Docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In today’s proposed rule, EPA is
proposing to add four new sites to the
NPL; all to the General Superfund
Section of the NPL. All of the sites in
this proposed rulemaking are being
proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50
or above. The sites are presented in the
table below.
State
Site name
IL ................................................................
NJ ..............................................................
NJ ..............................................................
PR ..............................................................
ASARCO Taylor Springs ........................................................................................
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek ...........................................................................
Matteo & Sons, Inc ................................................................................................
Maunabo Urbano Public Wells ..............................................................................
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
B. Proposal To Restore Site to NPL
Pursuant to CERCLA § 105(e) and 40
CFR § 300.425(e)(3), whenever there has
been a significant release of hazardous
substances or pollutants or
contaminants from a site that has been
deleted from the NPL, EPA can restore
the site to the NPL without application
of the HRS.
EPA is proposing to restore to the NPL
the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site in
Passaic, New Jersey based on new data
from a Field Reconnaissance Survey of
the site completed in October 2005. The
report is available through the
Superfund Docket at https://
www.regulations.gov (see Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0252).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
City/county
Taylor Springs.
Gibbsboro.
Thorofare.
Maunabo.
The Ringwood Mines/Landfill site
was added to the NPL on September 1,
1983 and deleted from the NPL on
November 2, 1994.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to
the NPL
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
EPA is withdrawing the proposal to
add the Sunflower Army Ammunition
Plant in De Soto, Kansas to the NPL.
The proposed rule can be found at 60
FR 8212 (February 13, 1995). Refer to
the Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2006–0258 for supporting
documentation regarding this action.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR
51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency
must determine whether a regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) review and the
requirements of the Executive Order.
The Order defines ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as one that is likely
to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an
annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more or adversely affect in a
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
material way the economy, a sector of
the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create
a serious inconsistency or otherwise
interfere with an action taken or
planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to
Executive Order 12866 Review?
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
No. The listing of sites on the NPL
does not impose any obligations on any
entities. The listing does not set
standards or a regulatory regime and
imposes no liability or costs. Any
liability under CERCLA exists
irrespective of whether a site is listed.
It has been determined that this action
is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under the terms of Executive Order
12866 and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction
Act?
According to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
that requires OMB approval under the
PRA, unless it has been approved by
OMB and displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations, after
initial display in the preamble of the
final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has
determined that the PRA does not apply
because this rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require approval of the OMB.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility
Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996) whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement
of the factual basis for certifying that a
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This proposed rule listing sites on the
NPL, if promulgated, would not impose
any obligations on any group, including
small entities. This proposed rule, if
promulgated, also would establish no
standards or requirements that any
small entity must meet, and would
impose no direct costs on any small
entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for
a release of hazardous substances
depends on whether that entity is liable
under CERCLA 107(a). Any such
liability exists regardless of whether the
site is listed on the NPL through this
rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any
requirements on any small entities. For
the foregoing reasons, I certify that this
proposed rule, if promulgated, will not
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20057
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 by State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before EPA
promulgates a rule where a written
statement is needed, section 205 of the
UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves 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, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed
Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments in the aggregate, or
by the private sector in any one year.
This rule will not impose any Federal
intergovernmental mandate because it
imposes no enforceable duty upon State,
tribal or local governments. Listing a
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
20058
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
site on the NPL does not itself impose
any costs. Listing does not mean that
EPA necessarily will undertake
remedial action. Nor does listing require
any action by a private party or
determine liability for response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses
result from site-specific decisions
regarding what actions to take, not
directly from the act of listing a site on
the NPL.
For the same reasons, EPA also has
determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. In addition, as discussed
above, the private sector is not expected
to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It
Applicable to This Proposed Rule?
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’
Under section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This proposed rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal
governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes,
as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically
significant’’ as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is not
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
an economically significant rule as
defined by Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have
reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this
proposed rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order
13211?
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act Apply
to This Proposed Rule?
No. This proposed rulemaking does
not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use
of any voluntary consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous
substances, Hazardous waste,
Intergovernmental relations, Natural
resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
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.
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 2006 / Proposed Rules
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 06–3667 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 06–726; MB Docket No. 06–66; RM–
11321]
Radio Broadcasting Services;
Normangee, TX
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on a petition for rulemaking
filed by Charles Crawford requesting the
allotment of Channel 299A at
Normangee, Texas. The reference
coordinates for Channel 299A at
Normangee, Texas, are 30–56–00 NL
and 96–11–30 WL. There is a site
restriction 13.0 kilometers (8.1 miles)
southwest of the community.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before May 22, 2006, and reply
comments on or before June 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments
with the FCC, interested parties should
serve the petitioner as follows: Charles
Crawford, 4553 Bordeaux Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75205 and Gene A.
Bechtel, Law Office of Gene Bechtel,
1050 17th Street, NW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
06–66, adopted March 29, 2006, and
released March 31, 2006. The full text
of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC’s
Reference Information Center at Portals
II, CY–A257, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC. This document may
also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractors,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–378–3160 or via e-mail https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. This document
does not contain proposed information
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:17 Apr 18, 2006
Jkt 208001
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules
governing permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper
filing procedures for comments, see 47
CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio, Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
§ 73.202
[Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM
Allotments under Texas, is amended by
adding Normangee, Channel 299A.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E6–5562 Filed 4–18–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 06–727; MB Docket No. 06–65, RM–
11320]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Ashland,
KS
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document requests
comments on a petition filed by OKAN
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20059
Community Radio proposing a first local
service at Ashland, Kansas. To avoid a
conflict with a mutually exclusive
proposal, we propose alternate Channel
288C3 at Ashland, consistent with the
minimum distance separation
requirements of the Commission’s rules,
at the center of the city reference
coordinates at 37–11–12 North Latitude
and 99–46–12 West Longitude.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before May 22, 2006, and reply
comments on or before June 6, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to
filing comments with the FCC,
interested parties should serve the
Petitioner’s counsel, as follows: OKAN
Community Radio, c/o Lee W. Shubert,
Esq., Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP,
1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW., East
Lobby, Suite 700, Washington, DC
20007–5201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Helen McLean, Media Bureau, (202)
418–2738.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No.
06–65, adopted March 29, 2006, and
released March 31, 2006. The full text
of this Commission decision is available
for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the
Commission’s Reference Center 445
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. This document may also be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractors, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 1–800–378–3160 or https://
www.BCPIWEB.com.
This document does not contain
proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13. In addition, therefore, it does not
contain any proposed information
collection burden ‘‘for small business
concerns with fewer than 25
employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
Members of the public should note
that from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making is issued until the matter
is no longer subject to Commission
consideration or court review, all ex
parte contacts are prohibited in
Commission proceedings, such as this
one, which involve channel allotments.
E:\FR\FM\19APP1.SGM
19APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20052-20059]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-
0250, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2006-0258; FRL-8159-4]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites,
Proposed Rule No. 44
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (``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'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further
investigations will allow EPA 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. This rule proposes to add four new sites to the NPL, all
to the General Superfund Section. This rule also proposes to restore
one site to the NPL and withdraws one site from proposal to the NPL.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before June 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table
below.
FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/state FDMS docket ID number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO Taylor Springs................... Taylor Springs, IL.................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant......... De Soto, KS........................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0258
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek........ Gibbsboro, NJ......................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242
Ringwood Mines/Landfill................. Ringwood, NJ.......................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252
Matteo & Sons, Inc...................... Thorofare, NJ......................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247
Maunabo Urbano Public Wells............. Maunabo, PR........................................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20053]]
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket
number, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov
Fax: (202) 566-0224
Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301
Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20004. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding
Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate FDMS Docket
number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made
available online at https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov website
is an ``anonymous access'' system, that means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public
Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone (703) 603-8852,
State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and
Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (Mail Code 5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund
Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What Is the NCP?
C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
B. How Do I Access the Documents?
C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Headquarters Docket?
D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the
Regional Dockets?
E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
F. What Happens to My Comments?
G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is
Over?
I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
B. Proposal To Restore Site to the NPL
C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866
Review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This
Proposed Rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
1. What is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
I. Background
A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
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 releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986,
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
B. What Is the NCP?
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
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
[[Page 20054]]
includes ``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 of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B)
of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as
a list of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and
requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance,
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner
of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. 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 a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score
and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. At Federal
Facilities Section sites, EPA's role is less extensive than at other
sites.
D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard
Ranking System (``HRS''), that EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP
(40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. 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
exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its
top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This
provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL
include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to
public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
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 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) and generally has updated it at least annually.
E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
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). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) 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 respond to the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance 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 (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify 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 identify the site, as
well as any other location where that contamination has come to be
located, or from where that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a 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
installation 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 name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not
imply that the Jones
[[Page 20055]]
company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release'' will be determined by a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). 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(s) 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.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, 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.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
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). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the
following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented
and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial
investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to
public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is
not appropriate.
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned
Up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and available for productive use.
I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
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). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal
significance.
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; (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. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund.
II. Public Review/Public Comment
A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring
of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both
at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by
electronic access at https://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in
the ADDRESSES section above).
B. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room
B102, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a
visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at
the beginning of this preamble.)
The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999
18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-2466; 303/
312-6463.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097.
Denise Baker, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-4303.
You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure
for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
You may use the Docket at https://www.regulations.gov to access
documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those
differences are outlined below.
C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation
Records describing the information used to compute the score;
[[Page 20056]]
information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements
or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the
Documentation Record.
D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Regional
Dockets?
The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information
in the Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual reference documents
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in
calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.
E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by
express mail or by postal mail.
F. What Happens to My Comments?
EPA considers all comments received during the comment period.
Significant comments will be addressed in a support document that EPA
will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and
when, the site is listed on the NPL.
G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials
prepared for purposes other than HRS scoring, should point out the
specific information that EPA should consider and how it affects
individual HRS factor values or other listing criteria (Northside
Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA will
not address voluminous comments that are not specifically cited by page
number and referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. EPA will
not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS
documentation record or what particular point in EPA's stated
eligibility criteria is at issue.
H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?
Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration
of late comments.
I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public
Docket at https://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without
change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.
J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed to the
NPL?
In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add four new sites to
the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. All of the
sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS
scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the table below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL........................... ASARCO Taylor Taylor Springs.
Springs.
NJ........................... Sherwin-Williams/ Gibbsboro.
Hilliards Creek.
NJ........................... Matteo & Sons, Thorofare.
Inc.
PR........................... Maunabo Urbano Maunabo.
Public Wells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Proposal To Restore Site to NPL
Pursuant to CERCLA Sec. 105(e) and 40 CFR Sec. 300.425(e)(3),
whenever there has been a significant release of hazardous substances
or pollutants or contaminants from a site that has been deleted from
the NPL, EPA can restore the site to the NPL without application of the
HRS.
EPA is proposing to restore to the NPL the Ringwood Mines/Landfill
site in Passaic, New Jersey based on new data from a Field
Reconnaissance Survey of the site completed in October 2005. The report
is available through the Superfund Docket at https://www.regulations.gov
(see Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252).
The Ringwood Mines/Landfill site was added to the NPL on September
1, 1983 and deleted from the NPL on November 2, 1994.
C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the Sunflower Army
Ammunition Plant in De Soto, Kansas to the NPL. The proposed rule can
be found at 60 FR 8212 (February 13, 1995). Refer to the Docket ID
Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0258 for supporting documentation regarding
this action.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in a
[[Page 20057]]
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does
not contain any information collection requirements that require
approval of the OMB.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities.
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is
needed, 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 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, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the
private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any Federal
intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon
State, tribal or local governments. Listing a
[[Page 20058]]
site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean
that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing
require any action by a private party or determine liability for
response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from
site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly
from the act of listing a site on the NPL.
For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed
Rule?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule
present a disproportionate risk to children.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage
Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to
This Proposed Rule?
No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
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.
[[Page 20059]]
Dated: April 12, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 06-3667 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
