Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27349

Organic Chemical Manufacturing

Industry (SOCMI)—40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart VV; was approved 04/29/96;

OMB No. 2060–0012; expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 1557.03; New Source

Performance Standards for Municipal

Solid Waste Landfills; was approved 04/

29/96; OMB No. 2060–0220; expires 04/

30/99.

EPA ICR No. 1770.02; Import of PCB

Wastes for Disposal; was approved 04/

26/96; OMB No. 2070–0149; expires 04/

30/99.

EPA ICR No. 0649.06; NSPS for Metal

Furniture Coating—40 CFR Part 60,

Subpart EE; was approved 04/29/96;

expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 1542.03; Tribal

Assumption of the Section 404 Permit

Program; was approved 04/26/96; OMB

No. 2040–0140; expires 04/30/98.

EPA ICR No. 1772.01; Information

Collection Activities Associated with

EPA’s Energy Star Building Program;

was approved 04/29/96; OMB No. 2060–

0347; expires 04/30/96.

EPA ICR No. 0275.06; Preaward

Compliance Review Report; was

approved 04/29/96; OMB No. 2090–

0014; expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 1710.02; Residential

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Disclosure

Requirements; was approved 04/22/96;

OMB No. 2070–0151; expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 0982.05; Standards of

Performance for NSPS, Metallic Mineral

Processing Plants—Subpart LL; was

approved 03/31/96; OMB No. 2060–

0016; expires 03/31/99.

EPA ICR No. 1608.01; State/Tribal

Municipal Solid Waste Landfill

(MSWLF) Program Adequacy

Determinations; was approved 04/15/96;

OMB No. 2050–0152; expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 0746.03; NSPS for

Calciners and Dryers in Mineral

Industries—Subpart UUU; was

approved 03/31/96; OMB No. 2060–

0252; expires 03/31/99.

EPA ICR No. 0795.09; Notification of

Chemical Experts—TSCA Section 12(b);

was approved 04/26/96; OMB No. 2070–

0030; expires 04/30/96.

EPA ICR No. 0152.05; Notice of

Arrival of Pesticides and Devices; was

approved 04/25/96; OMB No. 2070–

0030, expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 0783.33; Application of

Motor Vehicle Emission Certification

and Fuel Economy Labeling; was

approved 08/24/95; OMB No. 2060–

0104; expires 08/31/98.

EPA ICR No. 1188.05; Significant New

Use Rules for Exsiting Chemicals—

TSCA Section 5(a)(2); was approved 04/

17/96; OMB No. 2070–0038; expires 04/

30/99.

EPA ICR No. 1031.05; Allegations of

Significant Adverse Reactions to Human

Health or the Environment—TSCA

Section 8(c); was approved 04/15/96;

OMB No. 2070–0017; expires 04/30/99.

EPA ICR No. 0575.07; Health and

Safety Data Reporting, Submission of

Lists and Copies of Health and Safety

Studies; was approved 04/15/96; OMB

No. 2070–0004; expires 04/30/99.

EPA Withdrawals From OMB

EPA ICR NO. 0370.14; UIC Land

Disposal Restrictions, Phase III,

Decharacterized Wastewaters,

Barbamate Wastes, and Spent Potliners;

OMB No. 2040–0042; was withdrawn

from OMB 04/28/96.

EPA ICR No. 1088.07; Agency

Information Activities Renewal for

NSPS Subpart Db; OMB No. 2060–0072;

was withdrawn from OMB 04/29/96.

EPA ICR No. 1442.12; Land Disposal

Restrictions—Phase III: Decharacterized

Wastewaters, Barbamate Wastes, and

Spent Aluminum Potliners: Final Rule;

OMB No. 2050–0085; was withdrawn

from OMB 04/29/96.

OMB Disapproval

EPA ICR No. 1442.111; Land Disposal

Restrictions, Supplemental Proposal to

Phase IV: Clarification of Bevill

Exclusion for Mining Wastes; Changes

to the Definition of Solid Waste for

Mineral Processing Wastes; was

disapproved by OMB 04/05/96.

Extension of Expiration Dates

EPA ICR 0116.04; Emission Control

System Performance Warranty

Regulations and Voluntary Aftermarket

Part Certification Program; OMB No.

2060–0060; expiration date was

extended to 07/31/96.

EPA ICR No. 1088.06; NSPS for

Industrial, Commercial, Institutional

Steam Generating Units (Subpart DB),

Information Requirement, S02, PM,

NOX; OMB No. 2060–0072; expiration

date was extended to 07/31/96.

Dated: May 22, 1996.

Joseph Retzer,

Director, Regulatory Information Division.

[FR Doc. 96–13714 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5510–3]

Soil Screening Guidance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Soil

Screening Guidance.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has developed

the Soil Screening Guidance which is

now available. This guidance presents a

framework for developing soil screening

levels (SSLs), focusing primarily on a

simple methodology for developing sitespecific screening levels, but including

generic levels and the opportunity to do

more detailed modeling. The guidance

can serve as a tool to expedite the

evaluation of contaminated soils at sites

addressed under the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), commonly known as

Superfund. The guidance is intended to

be used to screen out areas of sites,

exposure pathways, or chemicals of

concern from further consideration,

assuming certain conditions are present,

or to determine that further study is

warranted at a site. It is not a rule, does

not have the force of a regulation, nor

should it be interpreted to represent

cleanup standards for a site.

The Soil Screening Guidance is

presented in three documents: (1) a

Quick Reference Fact Sheet, which

provides an overview of the

development and use of soil screening

levels; (2) a User’s Guide, which

provides details for implementing a

simple methodology for calculating sitespecific SSLs; and (3) a Technical

Background Document (TBD), which

presents generic SSLs and the technical

foundation for the methodology for

establishing SSLs. These documents are

available from the National Technical

Information Service at the address listed

below. Additional supporting

information, including summaries of

previous outreach activities, is available

for inspection in the Superfund Docket

at the address listed below.

As part of the development of the Soil

Screening Guidance, EPA conducted

extensive outreach and peer review. A

major component of that outreach was

providing the document for public

comment (59 FR 67706, December 30,

1994). As a result of comments received

during the public comment period and

the independent scientific peer review

conducted concurrently, several

changes were made to the guidance. The

highlights of that process are presented

below. In addition, EPA has developed

a more detailed Response to Comments

on the public review draft and the

independent scientific peer review. This

document is also available from the

National Technical Information Service

(see below).

DATES: The Soil Screening Guidance

was signed by Assistant Administrator

Laws on May 17, 1996 and is now being

published by National Technical

Information Service (NTIS).

ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft Soil

Screening Guidance may be ordered
27350 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

through the NTIS at (703)487–4650 as

follows:

Soil Screening Guidance Quick

Reference Fact Sheet, 9355.4–14FSA,

PB96–963501, EPA/540/F–95/041

Technical Background Document for

Soil Screening Guidance, 9355.4–17A,

PB96–963502, EPA/540/R–95/128

Soil Screening Guidance: User’s Guide,

9355.4–23, PB96–963505, EPA/540/

R–96/018

Soil Screening Guidance: Response to

Comments, 9355.4–22, PB96–963506,

EPA/540/R–96/019

Members of the public are invited to

inspect the docket developed to support

the Soil Screening Guidance at the

Superfund Docket, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, Virginia. [Docket

Number SSL]. The docket is available

for inspection between 9:00 a.m. and

4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding Federal holidays.

Appointments to review the docket can

be made by calling (703) 603–9232. The

public may copy a maximum of 266

pages from the docket free of charge,

however a charge of 15 cents will be

incurred for each additional page, plus

a $25.00 administrative fee.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800)

424–9346 (in the Washington, D.C.

metropolitan area, (703) 412–9810). The

Telecommunications Device for the Deaf

(TDD) Hotline number is (800) 553–

7672 (in the Washington, DC

metropolitan area, (703) 412–3323). You

may also contact David Cooper, Office

of Emergency and Remedial Response

(5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460, at (703) 603–

8763.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) responds to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous

substances under the authority of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Regulations

governing such responses are found in

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

or NCP. The process for remedy

selection in the NCP generally requires

that a remedial investigation be

performed to identify the nature and

extent of contamination at National

Priorities List (NPL) sites. From

sampling results, as well as site

observations obtained in the field,

specific contaminants and exposure

pathways of concern are identified and

used in a baseline risk assessment

performed to determine whether

remedial action is warranted. (See

source documents 1 and 2 listed at the

end of this document.)

Today’s Federal Register notice

announces the availability of a new tool

which may reduce significantly the time

it takes to complete soil investigations

and cleanup actions, as well as improve

the consistency of these actions across

the nation. The guidance was written to

enhance the efficiency of remedial

investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)

work at Superfund National Priorities

List (NPL) sites. This guidance on

developing soil screening levels is

expected to assist site managers in

quickly identifying contaminated soil of

potential concern and in screening out

from further consideration those soils

that do not warrant additional study.

The Soil Screening Guidance presents

three recommended methods for

developing risk-based, soil screening

levels, but emphasizes a simple, sitespecific approach. The formulae and

exposure assumptions used to develop

the screening levels have been taken

from the Risk Assessment Guidance for

Superfund 1,2 and have been widely

accepted in the Superfund program for

a number of years. These levels are then

compared to on-site soil contaminant

levels. Areas of a site which fall below

the screening levels may be eliminated

from further assessment. Areas above

the screening levels generally warrant

further evaluation of the potential risks

that may be posed by site contaminants

to determine the need for response

action. While the guidance is

recommended for use as a screening tool

to determine if further study of specific

portions of a site is warranted, the levels

should not be interpreted to represent

cleanup standards for a site.

Background

In 1993 EPA’s Office of Emergency

and Remedial Response (OERR)

developed a draft fact sheet entitled:

‘‘Interim Soil Screening Level

Guidance.’’ This guidance discussed the

development and use of risk-based Soil

Screening Levels (SSLs) for 30 common

Superfund soil contaminants. The

document was issued on September 30,

1993, to provide the basis for discussion

of the SSL project with stakeholders and

is available for review as background

information in the Superfund Docket.

The effort to develop such a guidance

was requested under both the EPA

Administrator’s June 19, 1991, ‘‘30-Day

Study,’’ and the more recent Superfund

Administrative Improvements

Initiatives announced by the Deputy

Administrator on June 23, 1993. This

guidance was subsequently revised and

expanded to become the ‘‘Soil Screening

Guidance,’’ dated December 1994. This

guidance was provided to the public for

comment (59 FR 67706) and submitted

to independent scientific peer review.

As a result of comments received in this

process, we made several changes to the

document. Some of the most significant

comments are highlighted here. The

Response to Comments provides a more

in-depth discussion of these changes

and many other, less significant

technical changes.

(1) Guidance needs to be more user

friendly. EPA has modified the

presentation of the guidance because

many people commented that it was not

clear how to implement the guidance.

The Soil Screening Guidance has been

reorganized into a ‘‘user’s guide’’ to

provide more useful information on

how to develop simple site-specific

screening levels and compare those to

contaminant concentrations found at

sites.

(2) Generic SSLs will be misused. The

generic SSLs are still part of the

framework, but they have been moved

to the Technical Background Document

in an effort to prevent their misuse.

They now appear in a section which

discusses the technical assumptions that

go into the development of those

numbers.

(3) Generic SSLs are too conservative.

Another impetus for moving the generic

levels to the TBD is concern that the

generic levels were too conservative.

One of the modeling inputs leading to

this conservatism is the assumption of

an infinite source of contamination. To

address this concern, the new guidance

provides an opportunity use sitespecific information to develop a

conservative estimate of the volume of

contamination at the site.

(4) Sampling strategy was based on an

assumption that is not appropriate for

all sites. One of the peer reviewers

commented that the approach for

sampling the site to determine the

contaminant concentrations was

dependent on the assumption of a lognormal distribution of contamination

that may not actually occur at the site.

That approach has been replaced by a

strategy that includes adequate

sampling of surface soil in the exposure

area, compositing of some samples to

reduce laboratory costs, and comparison

of the screening level with the

maximum of the composite samples

from each exposure area. The strategy

balances the desire for a statistically

based sampling strategy with the need

to control the number of samples and

the laboratory costs.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices 27351

(5) Non-residential land uses need to

be considered. EPA received from many

stakeholders that SSLs should be

developed for other land uses such as

industrial or recreational. EPA agrees in

principle that other land uses need to be

considered. However, as a first step in

the development of screening levels

EPA chose to focus on residential use

because there is more agreement in the

risk assessment community about the

types of relevant pathways and

assumptions appropriate for modeling

residential exposures. Several of the

Superfund reforms announced in

October 1995 address non-residential

land uses and should provide

information which could be used to

expand the soil screening guidance to

other land uses.

Goals

EPA’s goal in developing this

guidance is to provide a tool which can

be used to expedite the evaluation of

contaminated soils at sites addressed

under CERCLA. The guidance is

intended to be used to screen out areas

of sites, exposure pathways, or

chemicals of concern from further

consideration or to determine that

further study is warranted at a site. It

may be used where assumptions made

in developing the tool (e.g., residential

land use, no ecological concerns) are

consistent with conditions found at

specific sites.

This guidance is not intended to be,

and should not be construed as a rule.

Use of the guidance is not legally

binding either on EPA staff or on other

parties; rather it is intended to be a tool

available for use under appropriate sitespecific conditions. NPL sites do not all

meet the conditions necessary for its

use, consequently, EPA does not expect

this tool to be useful at all NPL sites.

EPA staff applying the guidance have

discretion to follow it or diverge from it

as site-specific conditions may warrant,

and each site-specific action will be

explained on its own record.

Please contact individuals and offices

listed in the sections of this notice

entitled ‘‘Addresses’’ and ‘‘For Further

Information Contact’’ to learn more

about the Soil Screening Guidance.

Source Documents

1. U.S. EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund: Volume 1: Human

Health Evaluation Manual, Part A, Interim

Final. EPA/540/1–89/002. Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response,

Washington D.C. NTIS PB90–155581/CCE.

2. U.S. EPA. 1991. Risk Assessment

Guidance for Superfund, Volume 1: Human

Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,

Development of Risk-Based Preliminary

Remediation Goals). Publication 9285.7–01B.

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,

Washington, D.C. NTIS PB92–963333.

Dated: May 17, 1996.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–13431 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

Notice of Public Information

Collections Submitted to OMB for

Review and Approval

May 23, 1996.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications,

as part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork burden invites the general

public and other Federal agencies to

take this opportunity to comment on the

following proposed and/or continuing

information collections, as required by

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. An agency may not

conduct or sponsor a collection of

information unless it displays a

currently valid control number. No

person shall be subject to any penalty

for failing to comply with a collection

of information subject to the Paperwork

Reduction Act (PRA) that does not

display a valid control number.

Comments are requested concerning (a)

whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(b) the accuracy of the Commissions

burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected and (d) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

DATES: Written comments should be

submitted on or before July 1, 1996. If

you anticipate that you will be

submitting comments, but find it

difficult to do so within the period of

time allowed by this notice, you should

advise the contact listed below as soon

as possible.

ADDRESS: Direct all comments to

Dorothy Conway, Federal

Communications, Room 234, 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, DC 20554 or via

internet to dconway@fcc.gov and

Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB 725 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or

fain_t@a1.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

additional information or copies of the

information collections contact Dorothy

Conway at 202–418–0217 or via internet

at dconway@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0099.

Title: Form M - Annual Report Form

M.

Form No.: FCC Form M.

Type of Review: Extension.

Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.

Number of Respondents: 3.

Estimated Time Per Response: 1120

hours.

Total Annual Burden: 3360.

Needs and Uses: FCC Form M is the

Annual Report of financial and

operating information from all subject

telephone companies having annual

operating revenues in excess of $100

million. It is needed to provide the

Commission with the data required to

fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.

OMB Approval No.: 3060-0550.

Title: Certification of Franchising

Authority to Regulate Basic Cable

Service Rates and Initial Finding of Lack

of Effective Competion.

Form No.: FCC Form 328.

Type of Review: Extension of

currently approved collection.

Respondents: State, Local or Tribal

Government.

Number of Respondents: 800.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Total Annual Burden: 400 hours.

Needs and Uses: On 4/1/93, the

Commission adopted a Report and

Order, FCC 93-177, MM Docket No. 92-

266. Among other things, this Report

and Order implements Section 623(a)(3)

of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, wherein a local franchise

authority is required to file with the

Commission a written certification

when it requests to regulate basic

service rates. Subsequently, the

Commission developed the FCC Form

328 to provide a standardized, simple

form for meeting this requirement. To

fulfill the obligations set forth under

Section 623(a)(3) a franchise authority

must: (1) adopt regulations consistent

with the Commission’s regulations for

basic cable service; (2) have legal

authority to regulate basic service which

comes from state law; (3) the personnel

to administer such regulations; and (4)

have procedural regulations allowing for

public participation in rate regulation

proceedings. The FCC Form 328 is

reviewed by FCC staff to ensure that a

franchising authority has met the

criteria specified in Section 623(a)(3) of

the Communications Act of 1934 as

amended.