National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 47, 53509-53516 [E7-18154]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
approved by an airport operator or
aircraft operator in order to inspect or
test compliance, or perform other such
duties as the FAA may direct.
Dated: September 13, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7–18405 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am]
Subpart B—[Reserved]
BILLING CODE 8010–01–P
Issued in Washington, DC, on September
12, 2007.
James J. Ballough,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E7–18349 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines; Electronic and Information
Technology Accessibility Standards
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
17 CFR Parts 210, 228, 229, 230, 239,
240 and 249
[Release Nos. 33–8831A; 34–56217A; IC–
27924A; File No. S7–20–07]
RIN 3235–AJ93
Concept Release on Allowing U.S.
Issuers to Prepare Financial
Statements in Accordance With
International Financial Reporting
Standards
Securities and Exchange
Commission.
ACTION: Correcting amendment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In Release No. 33–8831, the
Securities and Exchange Commission
issued a concept release on allowing
U.S. issuers to prepare financial
statements in accordance with
international financial reporting
standards which appeared in the
Federal Register of August 14, 2007 (72
FR 45599). The Commission is issuing
this correction to change the incorrect
web addresses listed in the concept
release.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katrina A. Kimpel, Professional
Accounting Fellow, Office of the Chief
Accountant at (202) 551–5300.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.
E7–15865 appearing on page 45600 in
the Federal Register of Tuesday, August
14, 2007, the following corrections are
made:
1. In the first column, revise the first
bulleted point under the section titled
Electronic Comments to read, ‘‘Use the
Commission’s Internet comment form
(https://www.sec.gov/rules/
concept.shtml); or’’.
2. Revise the Web site address found
in the parenthetical beginning on line
three of the second column to read,
‘‘https://www.sec.gov/rules/
concept.shtml’’.
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
36 CFR Parts 1193 and 1194
RIN 3014–AA22
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
VerDate Aug<31>2005
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
Jkt 211001
SUMMARY: The Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (Access Board) has established a
Telecommunications and Electronic and
Information Technology Advisory
Committee (Committee) to assist it in
revising and updating accessibility
guidelines for telecommunications
products and accessibility standards for
electronic and information technology.
This notice announces the dates and
times of four upcoming conference calls.
DATES: The conference calls are
scheduled for October 9, October 16,
October 23 and October 30, 2007
(beginning at 1 p.m. and ending at 3
p.m. Eastern time each day).
ADDRESSES: Individuals can participate
in the conference calls by dialing into
the teleconference numbers which will
be posted on the Access Board’s Web
site at: https://www.access-board.gov/
sec508/update-index.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy Creagan, Office of Technical
and Information Services, Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number: 202–272–0016
(Voice); 202–272–0082 (TTY).
Electronic mail address:
creagan@access-board.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access
Board) established the
Telecommunications and Electronic and
Information Technology Advisory
Committee (Committee) to assist it in
revising and updating accessibility
guidelines for telecommunications
products and accessibility standards for
electronic and information technology.
The next committee meetings will take
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53509
place on October 9, 16, 23 and 30, 2007
(all four meetings will be from 1 p.m. to
3 p.m. Eastern time) by teleconference.
The meetings will focus on issues yet to
be resolved by the Committee. The
agendas, instructions (including
information on captioning), and dial-in
telephone numbers for the
teleconferences are available at: https://
www.access-board.gov/sec508/updateindex.htm. Notices of future meetings
will be published in the Federal
Register.
The Committee may cancel any one of
these four teleconferences before they
are scheduled to take place depending
on the needs of the committee and its
progress in discussing and resolving
outstanding issues. Notices of
cancellation of any of these
teleconferences will be posted at:
https://www.access-board.gov/sec508/
update-index.htm.
The conference calls are open to the
public and interested persons can dial
into the teleconferences and
communicate their views. Members of
the public will have opportunities to
address the committee on issues of
interest to them and the committee
during public comment periods
scheduled during each conference call.
Participants may call into the
teleconferences from any location of
their choosing.
Lawrence W. Roffee,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. E7–18492 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0685, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2007–0686, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0687, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0688, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2007–0689, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2007–0690, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0691,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0692, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2007–0693, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0694, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0695, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2007–0696; FRL–8468–5]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Proposed Rule
No. 47
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,
requires that the National Oil and
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
53510
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may
be appropriate. This rule proposes to
add twelve new sites to the NPL, all to
the General Superfund Section.
Comments regarding any of these
proposed listings must be submitted
(postmarked) on or before November 19,
2007.
DATES:
Identify the appropriate
FDMS Docket Number from the table
below.
ADDRESSES:
FDMS DOCKET IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS BY SITE
City/State
Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination ..................................................
Elkhart, IN ..........................................
Plating, Inc. .....................................................................................................
Great Bend, KS .................................
Washington County Lead District—Old Mines ...............................................
Old Mines, MO ..................................
Washington County Lead District—Potosi .....................................................
Potosi, MO .........................................
Washington County Lead District—Richwoods ..............................................
Richwoods, MO .................................
East Troy Contaminated Aquifer ....................................................................
Troy, OH ............................................
Chem-Fab .......................................................................................................
Doylestown, PA .................................
San German Ground Water Contamination ...................................................
San German, PR ...............................
Donna Reservoir and Canal System ..............................................................
Donna, TX .........................................
Midessa Ground Water Plume .......................................................................
Odessa, TX ........................................
San Jacinto River Waste Pits .........................................................................
Houston, TX .......................................
Hidden Lane Landfill .......................................................................................
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Site name
Sterling, VA ........................................
Submit your comments, identified by
the appropriate FDMS Docket number,
by one of the following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov.
• 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
3340, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
comments received will be included in
the public Docket without change and
may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site 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 www.regulations.gov, your email 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
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FDMS Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0685
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0686
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0687
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0688
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0689
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0690
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0691
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0692
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0693
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0694
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0695
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0696
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
5204P); 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?
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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)?
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use Measure?
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
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?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53511
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.
Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
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
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
53512
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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. Indeed, the
precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of
listing.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
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. However, the NPL site is not
necessarily coextensive with the
boundaries of the installation or plant,
and the boundaries of the installation or
plant are not necessarily 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. In
addition, the site name is merely used
to help identify the geographic location
of the contamination and is not meant
to constitute any determination of
liability at a site. For example, the name
‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’ does not imply
that the Jones company is responsible
for the contamination located on the
plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the
‘‘nature and extent of the 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, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the
threat posed and therefore 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
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, it can submit supporting
information to the Agency at any time
after it 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 made 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
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use Measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure (formerly called Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse) represents important
Superfund accomplishments and the
measure reflects the high priority EPA
places on considering anticipated future
land use as part of our remedy selection
process. See Guidance for Implementing
the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure,
May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This
measure applies to final and deleted
sites where construction is complete, all
cleanup goals have been achieved, and
all institutional or other controls are in
place. EPA has been successful on many
occasions in carrying out remedial
actions that ensure protectiveness of
human health and the environment,
including current and future land users,
in a manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality
while ensuring protectiveness for
current and future land users. For
further information, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.
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 www.regulations.gov (see instructions
in the ADDRESSES section above).
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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 3340, Washington, DC
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
20004; 202/566–1744. (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, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; 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
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mail Stop ECL–115, Seattle, WA
98101; 206/553–2782
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
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53513
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;
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 are typically 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.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
53514
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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 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 twelve 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
IN .......................
KS .....................
MO ....................
MO ....................
MO ....................
OH .....................
PA .....................
PR .....................
TX ......................
TX ......................
TX ......................
VA .....................
Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination ..........................................................................................................
Plating, Inc. .............................................................................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Old Mines .......................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Potosi .............................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Richwoods ......................................................................................................
East Troy Contaminated Aquifer ............................................................................................................................
Chem-Fab ...............................................................................................................................................................
San German Ground Water Contamination ...........................................................................................................
Donna Reservoir and Canal System ......................................................................................................................
Midessa Ground Water Plume ...............................................................................................................................
San Jacinto River Waste Pits .................................................................................................................................
Hidden Lane Landfill ..............................................................................................................................................
Elkhart.
Great Bend.
Old Mines.
Potosi.
Richwoods.
Troy.
Doylestown.
San German.
Donna.
Odessa.
Houston.
Sterling.
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
numbers for EPA’s regulations, after
initial display in the preamble of the
final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to
Executive Order 12866 Review?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Proposed Rule?
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.
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;
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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
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
site on the NPL does not itself impose
any costs. Listing does not mean that
EPA necessarily will undertake
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53515
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.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
53516
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 181 / Wednesday, September 19, 2007 / Proposed Rules
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
health or safety risks addressed by this
proposed rule present a
disproportionate risk to children.
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.’’
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
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
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:41 Sep 18, 2007
Jkt 211001
3. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: September 4, 2007.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E7–18154 Filed 9–18–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 679
[Docket No. 070705262–7266–01]
RIN 0648–AV38
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries
of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area and Gulf of Alaska,
Seabird Avoidance Measures
Revisions
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: NMFS issues a proposed rule
that would revise the seabird avoidance
measures for the Alaska hook-and-line
groundfish and halibut fisheries. The
proposed rule would strengthen gear
standards for small vessels and
eliminate certain seabird avoidance
requirements that are not needed or not
effective. This action is necessary to
revise seabird avoidance measures
based on the latest scientific
information and to reduce unnecessary
regulatory burdens and associated costs.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by October 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be
submitted by:
• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
• Hand delivery: 709 West 9th Street,
Room 420A, Juneau, AK.
• Fax: 907–586–7557.
• E-mail: 0648–AV38–
SeabirdPR@noaa.gov. Include in the
subject line the following document
identifier: ‘‘Seabird Avoidance PR.’’ Email comments, with or without
attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.
• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 19, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53509-53516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-
0687, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2007-0690, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0693, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2007-0696; FRL-8468-5]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Proposed Rule No. 47
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
[[Page 53510]]
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 twelve new sites to the NPL, all
to the General Superfund Section.
DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be
submitted (postmarked) on or before November 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table
below.
FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/State FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lusher Street Ground Water Elkhart, IN............... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685
Contamination.
Plating, Inc........................... Great Bend, KS............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686
Washington County Lead District--Old Old Mines, MO............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0687
Mines.
Washington County Lead District--Potosi Potosi, MO................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688
Washington County Lead District-- Richwoods, MO............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689
Richwoods.
East Troy Contaminated Aquifer......... Troy, OH.................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0690
Chem-Fab............................... Doylestown, PA............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691
San German Ground Water Contamination.. San German, PR............ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692
Donna Reservoir and Canal System....... Donna, TX................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693
Midessa Ground Water Plume............. Odessa, TX................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694
San Jacinto River Waste Pits........... Houston, TX............... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695
Hidden Lane Landfill................... Sterling, VA.............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket
number, by one of the following methods:
www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov.
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 3340, 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 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
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web site 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 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 5204P); 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?
[[Page 53511]]
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)?
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
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
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
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. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 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
[[Page 53512]]
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. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
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. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily 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. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not imply that the
Jones company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant
site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the 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, the HRS inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed and therefore 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, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it 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 made 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
[[Page 53513]]
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.
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.
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 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
3340, Washington, DC 20004; 202/566-1744. (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, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 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
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-2782
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 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;
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 are typically 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.
[[Page 53514]]
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 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 twelve 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN...................... Lusher Street Ground Elkhart.
Water Contamination.
KS...................... Plating, Inc............ Great Bend.
MO...................... Washington County Lead Old Mines.
District--Old Mines.
MO...................... Washington County Lead Potosi.
District--Potosi.
MO...................... Washington County Lead Richwoods.
District--Richwoods.
OH...................... East Troy Contaminated Troy.
Aquifer.
PA...................... Chem-Fab................ Doylestown.
PR...................... San German Ground Water San German.
Contamination.
TX...................... Donna Reservoir and Donna.
Canal System.
TX...................... Midessa Ground Water Odessa.
Plume.
TX...................... San Jacinto River Waste Houston.
Pits.
VA...................... Hidden Lane Landfill.... Sterling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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;
[[Page 53515]]
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 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.
[[Page 53516]]
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
3. 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.
Dated: September 4, 2007.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. E7-18154 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
