Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30575

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Hazardous substances.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 6, 1996.

Phil Millam,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–15281 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5520–3]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 20

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,

requires that the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list

of national priorities among the known

releases or threatened releases of

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United

States. The National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list.

This rule proposes to add 15 new sites

to the NPL, 13 to the General Superfund

Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities

Section. The NPL is intended primarily

to guide the Environmental Protection

Agency (‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in

determining which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may

be appropriate.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before August 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Mail original and three

copies of comments (no facsimiles or

tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters, U.S. EPA, CERCLA

Docket Office, (Mail Code 5201G); 401

M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460,

703/603–8917. Please note this is the

mailing address only. If you wish to

visit the HQ Docket to view documents,

and for additional Docket addresses and

further details on their contents, see

Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Terry Keidan, State and Site

Identification Center, Office of

Emergency and Remedial Response

(Mail Code 5204G), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460, or the

Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424–

9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

III. Executive Order 12866

IV. Unfunded Mandates

V. Governors’ Concurrence

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

I. Introduction

Background

In 1980, Congress enacted the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of

uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA was amended on October 17,

1986, by the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’),

Pub. L. 99–499, stat. 1613 et seq. To

implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated

the revised National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR part 300, on July 16,

1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to

CERCLA section 105 and Executive

Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20,

1981). The NCP sets forth the guidelines

and procedures needed to respond

under CERCLA to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

EPA has revised the NCP on several

occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA

requires that the NCP include ‘‘criteria

for determining priorities among

releases or threatened releases

throughout the United States for the

purpose of taking remedial action * * *

and, to the extent practicable taking into

account the potential urgency of such

action, for the purpose of taking removal

action.’’ ‘‘Removal’’ actions are defined

broadly and include a wide range of

actions taken to study, clean up, prevent

or otherwise address releases and

threatened releases. 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).

‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,

taken instead of or in addition to

removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C

9601(24).

Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA

has promulgated a list of national

priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. That list,

which is appendix B of 40 CFR part 300,

is the National Priorities List (‘‘NPL’’).

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines

the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ and as a

list of the highest priority ‘‘facilities.’’

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also

requires that the NPL be revised at least

annually. A site may undergo remedial

action financed by the Trust Fund

established under CERCLA (commonly

referred to as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only

after it is placed on the NPL, as

provided in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(b)(1). However, under 40 CFR

300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL

‘‘does not imply that monies will be

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other

appropriate authorities to remedy the

releases, including enforcement action

under CERCLA and other laws. Further,

the NPL is only of limited significance,

as it does not assign liability to any

party or to the owner of any specific

property. See Report of the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public

Works, Senate Rep. No. 96–848, 96th

Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), quoted above

and at 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).

Three mechanisms for placing sites on

the NPL for possible remedial action are

included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c). Under 40 CFR 300.425(c)(1),

a site may be included on the NPL if it

scores sufficiently high on the Hazard

Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’), which EPA

promulgated as appendix A of 40 CFR

part 300. On December 14, 1990 (55 FR

51532), EPA promulgated revisions to

the HRS partly in response to CERCLA

section 105(c), added by SARA. The

revised HRS evaluates four pathways:

Ground water, surface water, soil

exposure, and air. The HRS serves as a

screening device to evaluate the relative

potential of uncontrolled hazardous

substances to pose a threat to human

health or the environment. As a matter

of Agency policy, those sites that score

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible

for the NPL.

Under a second mechanism for

adding sites to the NPL, each State may

designate a single site as its top priority,

regardless of the HRS score. This

mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40

CFR 300.425(c)(2), requires that, to the

extent practicable, the NPL include

within the 100 highest priorities, one

facility designated by each State

representing the greatest danger to

public health, welfare, or the

environment among known facilities in

the State.

The third mechanism for listing,

included in the NCP at 40 CFR
30576 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be

listed regardless of their HRS score, if

all of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public

Health Service has issued a health advisory

that recommends dissociation of individuals

from the release.

• EPA determines that the release poses a

significant threat to public health.

• EPA anticipates that it will be more costeffective to use its remedial authority

(available only at NPL sites) than to use its

removal authority to respond to the release.

EPA promulgated an original NPL of

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR

40658). The NPL has been expanded

since then, most recently on September

29, 1995 (60 FR 50435).

The NPL includes two sections, one of

sites that are evaluated and cleaned up

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund

Section’’), and one of sites being

addressed generally by other Federal

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities

Section’’). Under Executive Order 12580

(52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and

CERCLA section 120, each Federal

agency is responsible for carrying out

most response actions at facilities under

its own jurisdiction, custody, or control,

although EPA is responsible for

preparing an HRS score and

determining whether the facility is

placed on the NPL. EPA is not the lead

agency at these sites, and its role at such

sites is accordingly less extensive than

at other sites. The Federal Facilities

Section includes facilities at which EPA

is not the lead agency.

Site Boundaries

The NPL does not describe releases in

precise geographical terms; it would be

neither feasible nor consistent with the

limited purpose of the NPL (as the mere

identification of releases), for it to do so.

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs

EPA to list national priorities among the

known ‘‘releases or threatened

releases.’’ Thus, the purpose of the NPL

is merely to identify releases that are

priorities for further evaluation.

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is

broadly defined to include any area

where a hazardous substance release has

‘‘come to be located’’ (CERCLA section

101(9)), the listing process itself is not

intended to define or reflect the

boundaries of such facilities or releases.

Of course, HRS data upon which the

NPL placement was based will, to some

extent, describe which release is at

issue. That is, the NPL site would

include all releases evaluated as part of

that HRS analysis (including

noncontiguous releases evaluated under

the NPL aggregation policy, described at

48 FR 40663 (September 8, 1983)).

When a site is listed, it is necessary

to define the release (or releases)

encompassed within the listing. The

approach generally used is to delineate

a geographical area (usually the area

within the installation or plant

boundaries) and define the site by

reference to that area. As a legal matter,

the site is not coextensive with that

area, and the boundaries of the

installation or plant are not the

‘‘boundaries’’ of the site. Rather, the site

consists of all contaminated areas

within the area used to define the site,

and any other location to which

contamination from that area has come

to be located.

While geographic terms are often used

to designate the site (e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co.

plant site’’) in terms of the property

owned by the particular party, the site

properly understood is not limited to

that property (e.g., it may extend beyond

the property due to contaminant

migration), and conversely may not

occupy the full extent of the property

(e.g., where there are uncontaminated

parts of the identified property, they

may not be, strictly speaking, part of the

‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’ is thus neither equal

to nor confined by the boundaries of any

specific property that may give the site

its name, and the name itself should not

be read to imply that this site is

coextensive with the entire area within

the property boundary of the facility or

plant. The precise nature and extent of

the site are typically not known at the

time of listing. Also, the site name is

merely used to help identify the

geographic location of the

contamination. For example, the ‘‘Jones

Co. plant site,’’ does not imply that the

Jones company is responsible for the

contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the

‘‘nature and extent of the threat

presented by a release’’ will be

determined by a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS) as more

information is developed on site

contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)).

During the RI/FS process, the release

may be found to be larger or smaller

than was originally thought, as more is

learned about the source and the

migration of the contamination.

However, this inquiry focuses on an

evaluation of the threat posed; the

boundaries of the release need not be

exactly defined. Moreover, it generally

is impossible to discover the full extent

of where the contamination ‘‘has come

to be located’’ before all necessary

studies and remedial work are

completed at a site. Indeed, the

boundaries of the contamination can be

expected to change over time. Thus, in

most cases, it may be impossible to

describe the boundaries of a release

with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing

does not assign liability to any party or

to the owner of any specific property.

Thus, if a party does not believe it is

liable for releases on discrete parcels of

property, supporting information can be

submitted to the Agency at any time

after a party receives notice it is a

potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not

be amended if further research into the

extent of the contamination expands the

apparent boundaries of the release.

Deletions/Cleanups

EPA may delete sites from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate under Superfund, as

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e). This section also provides

that EPA shall consult with states on

proposed deletions and shall consider

whether the following criteria have been

met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been

implemented and no further response

action is required;

(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.

To date, the Agency has deleted 108

sites from the final NPL.

EPA also has developed an NPL

construction completion list (‘‘CCL’’) to

simplify its system of categorizing sites

and to better communicate the

successful completion of cleanup

activities (58 FR 12142, March 2, 1993).

Sites qualify for the CCL when:

(1) Any necessary physical

construction is complete, whether or not

final cleanup levels or other

requirements have been achieved;

(2) EPA has determined that the

response action should be limited to

measures that do not involve

construction (e.g., institutional

controls); or

(3) The site qualifies for deletion from

the NPL.

Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no

legal significance.

In addition to the 102 sites that have

been deleted from the NPL because they

have been cleaned up (6 sites have been

deleted based on deferral to other

authorities and are not considered

cleaned up), an additional 251 sites are

also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of June

1996, the CCL consists of 353 sites.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30577

Public Comment Period

The documents that form the basis for

EPA’s evaluation and scoring of sites in

this rule are contained in dockets

located both at EPA Headquarters and in

the appropriate Regional offices. The

dockets are available for viewing, by

appointment only, after the appearance

of this rule. The hours of operation for

the Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m.

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday

excluding Federal holidays. Please

contact individual Regional dockets for

hours.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.

EPA CERCLA Docket Office, (Mail

Code 5201G), Crystal Gateway #1, 1st

Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603–8917.

(Please note this is visiting address

only. Mail comments to address listed

in ‘‘Addresses’’ section above.)

Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste

Management Records Center, HRC–

CAN–7, J.F. Kennedy Federal

Building, Boston, MA 02203–2211,

617/573–9656.

Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290

Broadway, New York, NY 10007–

1866, 212/637–4435.

Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA

Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut

Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/566–

5250.

Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 345

Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, GA

30365, 404/347–4216.

Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA,

Records Center, Waste Management

Division 7–J, Metcalfe Federal

Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, IL 60604, 312/886–6214.

Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445

Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H–MA,

Dallas, TX 75202–2733, 214/655–

6740.

Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726

Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS

66101, 913/551–7224.

Bob Heise, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–

2466, 303/312–6831.

Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105, 415/744–2343.

David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA,

11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail

Stop HW–114, Seattle, WA 98101,

206/553–2103.

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains HRS score sheets for each

proposed site; a Documentation Record

for each site describing the information

used to compute the score; information

for any site affected by particular

statutory requirements or EPA listing

policies; and a list of documents

referenced in the Documentation

Record.

The Headquarters docket also

contains an ‘‘Additional Information’’

document which provides a general

discussion of the statutory requirements

affecting NPL listing, the purpose and

implementation of the NPL, and the

economic impacts of NPL listing.

Each Regional docket for this rule

contains all of the information in the

Headquarters docket for sites in that

Region, plus the actual reference

documents containing the data

principally relied upon and cited by

EPA in calculating or evaluating the

HRS scores for sites in that Region.

These reference documents are available

only in the Regional dockets. Interested

parties may view documents, by

appointment only, in the Headquarters

or the appropriate Regional docket or

copies may be requested from the

Headquarters or appropriate Regional

docket. An informal written request,

rather than a formal request under the

Freedom of Information Act, should be

the ordinary procedure for obtaining

copies of any of these documents.

EPA considers all comments received

during the comment period. 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 docket approximately

one week after the formal comment

period closes. Comments received after

the comment period closes will be

available in the Headquarters docket

and in the Regional docket on an ‘‘as

received’’ basis. 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. See Northside

Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas, 849 F.2d

1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988). EPA will make

final listing decisions after considering

the relevant comments received during

the comment period.

In past rules, EPA has attempted to

respond to late comments, or when that

was not practicable, to read all late

comments and address those that

brought to the Agency’s attention a

fundamental error in the scoring of a

site. Although EPA intends to pursue

the same policy with sites in this rule,

EPA can guarantee that it will consider

only those comments postmarked by the

close of the formal comment period.

EPA has a policy of not delaying a final

listing decision solely to accommodate

consideration of late comments.

In certain instances, interested parties

have written to EPA concerning sites

which 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.

Contents of This Proposed Rule

Table 1 identifies the 13 sites in the

General Superfund Section being

proposed to the NPL in this rule. Table

2 identifies the 2 sites in the Federal

Facilities Section being proposed to the

NPL in this rule. These tables follow

this preamble. All sites are proposed

based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above.

The sites in Table 1 and Table 2 are

listed alphabetically by State, for ease of

identification, with group number

identified to provide an indication of

relative ranking. To determine group

number, sites on the NPL are placed in

groups of 50; for example, a site in

Group 4 of this proposal has a score that

falls within the range of scores covered

by the fourth group of 50 sites on the

NPL.

This action along with a final rule

published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, results in an NPL of 1,227

sites, 1,073 in the General Superfund

Section and 154 in the Federal Facilities

Section. An additional 52 sites are now

proposed and are awaiting final agency

action, 47 in the General Superfund

Section and 5 in the Federal Facilities

Section. Final and proposed sites now

total 1,279.

III. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.

104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. When a written

statement is needed for an EPA rule,
30578 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules

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, giving them

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.

Today’s rule contains no Federal

mandates (within the meaning of Title

II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal

governments or the private sector. Nor

does it contain any regulatory

requirements that might significantly or

uniquely affect small governments. This

is because today’s listing decision does

not impose any enforceable duties upon

any of these governmental entities or the

private sector. Inclusion of a site on the

NPL does not itself impose any costs. It

does not establish that EPA necessarily

will undertake remedial action, nor does

it require any action by a private party

or determine its liability for site

response costs. Costs that arise out of

site responses result from site-by-site

decisions about what actions to take, not

directly from the act of listing itself.

Therefore, today’s rulemaking is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202, 203 or 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act.

V. Governor’s Concurrence

On May 2, 1996, Congress enacted the

Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and

Appropriations Act of 1996 Public Law

(Pub. L.) 104–134, which established

federal government spending limitations

for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1996. Pub. L. 104–134 provides that

EPA may not use funds made available

for fiscal year 1996 ‘‘to propose for

listing or to list any additional facilities

on the National Priorities List * * *

unless the Administrator receives a

written request to propose for listing or

to list a facility from the Governor of the

State in which the facility is located.

* * *’’ EPA has received letters from

the appropriate governors requesting

that the Agency list on the NPL all the

facilities in this rule with one exception.

EPA received a letter for the Del Amo

site from the State environmental

agency with prior verbal agreement from

the Governor of California. These letters

are available in the docket for this

rulemaking.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980

requires EPA to review the impacts of

this action on small entities, or certify

that the action will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. By small

entities, the Act refers to small

businesses, small government

jurisdictions, and nonprofit

organizations.

While this rule proposes to revise the

NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical

regulatory change since it does not

automatically impose costs. As stated

above, adding sites to the NPL does not

in itself require any action by any party,

nor does it determine the liability of any

party for the cost of cleanup at the site.

Further, no identifiable groups are

affected as a whole. As a consequence,

impacts on any group are hard to

predict. A site’s inclusion on the NPL

could increase the likelihood of adverse

impacts on responsible parties (in the

form of cleanup costs), but at this time

EPA cannot identify the potentially

affected businesses or estimate the

number of small businesses that might

also be affected.

The Agency does expect that placing

the sites in this proposed rule on the

NPL could significantly affect certain

industries, or firms within industries,

that have caused a proportionately high

percentage of waste site problems.

However, EPA does not expect the

listing of these sites to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would

occur only through enforcement and

cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes

at its discretion on a site-by-site basis.

EPA considers many factors when

determining enforcement actions,

including not only a firm’s contribution

to the problem, but also its ability to

pay. The impacts (from cost recovery)

on small governments and nonprofit

organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby

certify that this proposed rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore, this

proposed regulation does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #20, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

[Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 13]

State Site name City/County NPL

Gr 1

CA ..... Del Amo ..................................................................................................... Los Angeles .................................................................. 22

FL ...... MRI Corp (Tampa) ..................................................................................... Tampa ........................................................................... 16

FL ...... Stauffer Chemical Co (Tampa) .................................................................. Tampa ........................................................................... 1

IL ....... Circle Smelting Corp .................................................................................. Beckemeyer .................................................................. 1

IL ....... Sauget Area 1 ............................................................................................ Sauget ........................................................................... 1

LA ..... Madisonville Creosote Works .................................................................... Madisonville .................................................................. 7

MD .... Central Chemical (Hagerstown) ................................................................. Hagerstown ................................................................... 5/6

NH ..... Beede Waste Oil ........................................................................................ Plaistow ......................................................................... 1

NY ..... Cross County Sanitation Landfill ............................................................... Patterson ....................................................................... 5/6

PR ..... V&M/Albaladejo .......................................................................................... Vega Baja ..................................................................... 5/6

SC ..... Shuron Inc .................................................................................................. Barnwell ........................................................................ 1

TX ..... Tex-Tin Corp .............................................................................................. Texas City ..................................................................... 5/6

WV .... Sharon Steel Corp (Fairmont Coke Works) .............................................. Fairmont ........................................................................ 2

1Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 117 / Monday, June 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 30579

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #20, FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

[Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facility Section: 2]

State Site name City/County NPL

Gr 1

FL ...... Tyndall Air Force Base .............................................................................. Panama City ................................................................. 5/6

VA ..... Sewells Point Naval Complex .................................................................... Norfolk ........................................................................... 5/6

1Sites are placed in groups (Gr) corresponding to groups of 50 on the final NPL.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Air pollution control, Chemicals,

Environmental Protection, Hazardous

materials, Intergovernmental relations,

Natural resources, Oil pollution,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Waste

treatment and disposal, Water pollution

control, Water supply.

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: June 6, 1996.

Elliott P. Laws,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 96–15033 Filed 6–14–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 87–75; FCC 96–161]

Provision of Aeronautical Services via

the Inmarsat System

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted

restrictions on use of the Inmarsat

system for aeronautical services in the

U.S. in Aeronautical Services Order II.

In a Further Notice of Proposed Rule

Making (FNPRM), the Commission is

examining the prior restrictions and

seeking comment on alternative

arrangements. In the FNPRM the

Commission proposed to establish the

scope of permissible uses of Inmarsat

aeronautical services in the United

States. The Commission has generally

promoted competition in satellite

communications in both the

international and U.S. domestic

markets. Due to spectrum availability

constraints in the L-band it was

necessary to propose limits on the use

of Inmarsat aeronautical services in the

United States. The spectrum in which

mobile satellite services (MSS) will

operate is limited and appears

insufficient to meet the stated spectrum

requirements for the North American

coverage area for American Mobile

Satellite Corporation, Inmarsat and

three other countries developing MSS

systems—Canada, Mexico and Russia.

In the future, the Commission may

permit entry by Inmarsat into the U.S.

domestic aeronautical market—but not

until the U.S. has ensured sufficient

spectrum for domestic needs without

interference to communications links.

The intended effect of this proceeding is

to establish the manner in which

Inmarsat aeronautical services will be

available in the U.S. consistent with

competition policies and spectrum

availability.

DATES: Comments are due July 17, 1996;

reply comments are due August 16,

1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Olga

Madruga-Forti, International Bureau,

Satellite and Radiocommunication

Division, Satellite Policy Branch, (202)

418–0766.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC

Docket 87–75, Provision of Aeronautical

Services via the Inmarsat System,

Commission 96–161, adopted April 9,

1996, released May 9, 1996. The

Commission is considering adopting

geographical restriction to Inmarsat

aeronautical services similar to those

established in Aeronautical Services

Order II, 54 FR 33224 (August 14, 1989).

The complete text of this FNPRM is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

Commission Reference Center, 1919 M

Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also

may be purchased from the

Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

(202) 857–3800, 2100 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

I. Introduction

In this Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, the Commission initiated a

further notice of proposed rulemaking

concerning the geographic restrictions

on the domestic use of Inmarsat-based

aeronautical satellite services adopted

in Aeronautical Services Order II, 54 FR

33224 (August 14, 1989). The

Commission identified three possible

models for geographic limitations: (1)

Decline to authorize Inmarsat

aeronautical services in U.S. airspace;

(2) Authorize Inmarsat aeronautical

services in the U.S. for aircraft in

international flight up to the first port of

entry and from the last port of departure

from the U.S.; and (3) Authorize

Inmarsat aeronautical services in the

U.S. for all international flights

including the domestic legs of

international flights. Analysis and

comment should consider the reliability

and quality of communications and the

Commission’s desire to promote

competition. Furthermore, in order to

ensure continuity of service the

Commission granted those parties

already authorized to provide Inmarsat

aeronautical mobile satellite service to

aircraft in international flight special

temporary authority to provide service

to aircraft in domestic flight.

II. Background

In 1987, the Commission initiated a

rulemaking to determine how

aeronautical mobile satellite service

(‘‘AMSS’’) via Inmarsat would be

provided in the United States. In

Aeronautical Services Order II, the

Commission authorized COMSAT to

provide Inmarsat aeronautical services

to United States aeronautical earth

stations for aircraft in flight: (1) from the

United States to a foreign point; (2) from

a foreign point into the United States;

and (3) between any two foreign points.

The Commission also specified that

aircraft in flight between two U.S.

domestic points may use only the

domestic mobile satellite system for

satellite communications to the extent

the coverage area of that system permits.

3. We have generally promoted

competition in satellite communications

in both the international and U.S.

domestic markets. The circumstances

presented here pose certain limitations

on the extent to which we can achieve

a fully competitive U.S. market for MSS

systems in the L-band. The spectrum in