Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2001-0002-0094
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-08-30T22:00:01Z

51882
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
52
[
CA
211
 
0102b;
FRL
 
6161
 
9]

Approval
and
Promulgation
of
State
Implementation
Plans;
California
State
Implementation
Plan
Revision,
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
Rule.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
approving
a
revision
to
the
California
State
Implementation
Plan
(
SIP)
which
concerns
the
general
provisions
and
definitions
that
are
applicable
to
all
regulations
in
the
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District.
The
intended
effect
of
this
action
is
to
clarify
the
general
provisions
and
definitions
that
apply
to
the
regulation
of
emissions
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs),
oxides
of
nitrogen
(
NOx),
and
other
pollutants
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
as
amended
in
1990
(
CAA
or
the
Act).
In
the
Final
Rules
Section
of
this
Federal
Register,
the
EPA
is
approving
the
state's
SIP
submittal
as
a
direct
final
rule
without
prior
proposal
because
the
Agency
views
this
as
a
noncontroversial
revision
and
anticipates
no
adverse
comments.
A
detailed
rationale
for
this
approval
is
set
forth
in
the
direct
final
rule.
If
no
adverse
comments
are
received,
no
further
activity
is
contemplated.
If
EPA
receives
adverse
comments,
the
direct
final
rule
will
be
withdrawn
and
all
public
comments
received
will
be
addressed
in
a
subsequent
final
rule
based
on
this
proposed
rule.
The
EPA
will
not
institute
a
second
comment
period.
Any
parties
interested
in
commenting
should
do
so
at
this
time.
DATES:
Written
comments
must
be
received
by
October
29,
1998.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
should
be
addressed
to:
Andrew
Steckel,
Rulemaking
Office
[
AIR
 
4],
Air
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
IX,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105
 
3901.
Copies
of
the
rule
revision
are
available
for
public
inspection
at
EPA's
Region
IX
office
during
normal
business
hours
and
at
the
following
locations:
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District,
939
Ellis
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94109.
California
Air
Resources
Board,
Stationary
Source
Division,
Rule
Evaluation
Section,
2020
``
L''
Street,
Sacramento,
CA
95812.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Yvonne
Fong,
Rulemaking
Office
[
AIR
 
4],
Air
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Region
IX,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105
 
3901,
Telephone:
(
415)
744
 
1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
This
document
concerns
Bay
Area
Air
Quality
Management
District
Regulation
1,
General
Provisions
and
Definitions,
submitted
to
EPA
on
June
23,
1998
by
the
California
Air
Resources
Board.
For
further
information,
please
see
the
information
provided
in
the
direct
final
action
that
is
located
in
the
rules
section
of
this
Federal
Register.

Dated:
September
4,
1998.
Felicia
Marcus,
Regional
Administrator,
Region
IX.
[
FR
Doc.
98
 
25892
Filed
9
 
28
 
98;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Parts
144,
145
and
146
[
FRL
 
6170
 
2]

RIN
2040
 
AB83
Reopening
of
Comment
Period
on
Revisions
to
the
Underground
Injection
Control
Regulations
for
Class
V
Injection
Wells
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
notice
of
reopening
of
comment
period.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
is
reopening
the
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule
revising
the
Class
V
Underground
Injection
Control
(
UIC)
regulations
which
published
in
the
Federal
Register
on
July
29,
1998
at
(
63
FR
40585).
The
reopening
of
the
comment
period
will
allow
all
interested
parties
to
submit
written
comments
on
the
proposal.
DATES:
The
comment
period
for
this
proposal
will
be
reopened
on
September
29,
1998
and
will
close
on
November
30,
1998.
Comments
will
only
be
accepted
on
new
sections
of
the
proposed
rule
(
see
Table
1
of
the
preamble
(
63
FR
40587)).
ADDRESSES:
Send
written
comments
to
the
UIC
Class
V,
W
 
98
 
05
Comment
Clerk,
Water
Docket
(
MC
 
4101);
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
401
M
Street,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Comments
may
be
hand­
delivered
to
the
Water
Docket,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
401
M
Street,
SW.,
East
Tower
Basement,
Washington,
DC
20460.
Comments
may
be
submitted
electronically
to
owdocket@
epamail.
epa.
gov.
Please
submit
all
references
cited
in
your
comments.
Facsimiles
(
faxes)
cannot
be
accepted.
EPA
would
appreciate
one
original
and
three
copies
of
your
comments
and
enclosures
(
including
any
references).
Commenters
who
would
like
EPA
to
acknowledge
receipt
of
their
comments
should
include
a
self­
addressed,
stamped
envelope.
The
proposed
rule
and
supporting
documents,
including
public
comments,
are
available
for
review
in
the
Water
Docket
at
the
above
address.
For
information
on
how
to
access
Docket
materials,
please
call
(
202)
260
 
3027
between
9
a.
m.
and
3:
30
p.
m.
Eastern
Time,
Monday
through
Friday.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
general
information,
contact
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline,
phone
800
 
426
 
4791.
The
Safe
Drinking
Water
Hotline
is
open
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
federal
holidays,
from
9:
00
a.
m.
to
5:
30
p.
m.
Eastern
Time.
For
technical
inquiries,
contact
Robyn
Delehanty,
Underground
Injection
Control
Program,
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water
(
mailcode
4606),
EPA,
401
M
Street,
SW,
Washington
DC,
20460.
Phone:
202
 
260
 
1993.
E­
mail:
delehanty.
robyn@
epamail.
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
The
reopened
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rulemaking
now
ends
November
30,
1998.
All
comments
submitted
in
accordance
with
the
instructions
in
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
will
be
incorporated
into
the
Record
and
considered
before
promulgation
of
the
final
rule.

Dated:
September
23,
1998.
J.
Charles
Fox,
Acting
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Water.
[
FR
Doc.
98
 
26008
Filed
9
 
28
 
98;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[
FRL
 
6169
 
2]

National
Priorities
List
for
Uncontrolled
Hazardous
Waste
Sites,
Proposed
Rule
No.
26
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.
51883
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
SUMMARY:
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(``
CERCLA''
or
``
the
Act''),
requires
that
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(``
NCP'')
include
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
National
Priorities
List
(``
NPL'')
constitutes
this
list.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA''
or
``
the
Agency'')
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
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
12
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
30,
1998.
ADDRESSES:
By
Postal
Mail:
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
 
9232.
By
Express
Mail:
Send
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
(
no
facsimiles
or
tapes)
to
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters;
U.
S.
EPA;
CERCLA
Docket
Office;
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway;
Crystal
Gateway
#
1,
First
Floor;
Arlington,
VA
22202.
By
E­
Mail:
Comments
in
ASCII
format
only
may
be
mailed
directly
to
SUPERFUND.
DOCKET@
EPA.
GOV.
Emailed
comments
must
be
followed
up
by
an
original
and
three
copies
sent
by
mail
or
express
mail.
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
Keidan,
phone
(
703)
603
 
8852,
State,
Tribal
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:

Table
of
Contents
I.
Background
A.
What
are
CERCLA
and
SARA?
B.
What
is
the
NCP?
C.
What
is
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)?
D.
How
are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NPL?
E.
What
Happens
to
Sites
on
the
NPL?
F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?
G.
How
Are
Sites
Removed
From
the
NPL?
H.
Can
Portions
of
Sites
Be
Deleted
from
the
NPL
as
They
Are
Cleaned
Up?
I.
What
is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(
CCL)?
II.
Public
Review/
Public
Comment
A.
Can
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.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
After
the
Public
Comment
Period
Is
Over?
I.
Can
I
View
Public
Comments
Submitted
by
Others?
J.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
Regarding
Sites
Not
Currently
Proposed
to
the
NPL?
III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
the
NPL
B.
Status
of
NPL
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12866?
B.
Is
This
Proposed
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
What
is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)?
B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?
B.
Does
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
VII.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
A.
What
is
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?
B.
Does
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
VIII.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
13045?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
13045
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
IX.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
What
is
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
B.
Does
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
X.
Executive
Order
12875
What
is
Executive
Order
12875
and
is
it
Applicable
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
XI.
Executive
Order
13084
What
is
Executive
Order
13084
and
is
it
Applicable
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
of
hazardous
substances.
CERCLA
was
amended
on
October
17,
1986,
by
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(``
SARA''),
Pub.
L.
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,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
under
CERCLA.
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
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.
However,
the
NPL
is
only
of
limited
significance,
as
it
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
Neither
does
placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
mean
that
any
remedial
or
removal
action
necessarily
need
be
taken.
See
Report
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
51884
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
Works,
Senate
Rep.
No.
96
 
848,
96th
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
60
(
1980),
48
FR
40659
(
September
8,
1983).
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
generally
is
not
the
lead
agency
at
Federal
Facilities
Section
sites,
and
its
role
at
such
sites
is
accordingly
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''),
which
EPA
promulgated
as
a
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
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)
Each
State
may
designate
a
single
site
as
its
top
priority
to
be
listed
on
the
NPL,
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
(
42
U.
S.
C.
9605(
a)(
8)(
B));
(
3)
The
third
mechanism
for
listing,
included
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)(
3),
allows
certain
sites
to
be
listed
regardless
of
their
HRS
score,
if
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
·
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
health
advisory
that
recommends
dissociation
of
individuals
from
the
release.
·
EPA
determines
that
the
release
poses
a
significant
threat
to
public
health.
·
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
be
more
cost­
effective
to
use
its
remedial
authority
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
18,
1998
(
63
FR
49855).

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
remedy
the
releases,
including
enforcement
action
under
CERCLA
and
other
laws.

F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?

The
NPL
does
not
describe
releases
in
precise
geographical
terms;
it
would
be
neither
feasible
nor
consistent
with
the
limited
purpose
of
the
NPL
(
to
identify
releases
that
are
priorities
for
further
evaluation),
for
it
to
do
so.
Although
a
CERCLA
``
facility''
is
broadly
defined
to
include
any
area
where
a
hazardous
substance
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
(
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,
to
describe
the
relevant
release(
s)
the
approach
generally
used
is
to
delineate
a
geographical
area
(
usually
the
area
within
an
installation
or
plant
boundaries)
and
identify
the
site
by
reference
to
that
area.
As
a
legal
matter,
the
site
is
not
coextensive
with
that
area,
and
the
boundaries
of
the
installation
or
plant
are
not
the
``
boundaries''
of
the
site.
Rather,
the
site
consists
of
all
contaminated
areas
within
the
area
used
to
identify
the
site,
as
well
as
any
other
location
to
which
contamination
from
that
area
has
come
to
be
located,
or
from
which
that
contamination
came.
In
other
words,
while
geographic
terms
are
often
used
to
designate
the
site
(
e.
g.,
the
``
Jones
Co.
plant
site'')
in
terms
of
the
property
owned
by
a
particular
party,
the
site
properly
understood
is
not
limited
to
that
property
(
e.
g.,
it
may
extend
beyond
the
property
due
to
contaminant
migration),
and
conversely
may
not
occupy
the
full
extent
of
the
property
(
e.
g.,
where
there
are
uncontaminated
parts
of
the
identified
property,
they
may
not
be,
strictly
speaking,
part
of
the
``
site'').
The
``
site''
is
thus
neither
equal
to
nor
confined
by
the
boundaries
of
any
specific
property
that
may
give
the
site
its
name,
and
the
name
itself
should
not
be
read
to
imply
that
this
site
is
coextensive
with
the
entire
area
within
the
property
boundary
of
the
installation
or
plant.
The
precise
nature
and
extent
of
the
site
are
typically
not
known
at
the
time
of
listing.
Also,
the
site
name
is
merely
used
to
help
identify
the
geographic
location
of
the
contamination.
For
example,
the
``
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(
s)
and
the
migration
of
the
contamination.
However,
this
inquiry
focuses
on
an
evaluation
of
the
threat
posed;
the
boundaries
of
the
release
need
not
be
exactly
defined.
Moreover,
it
generally
is
impossible
to
discover
the
full
extent
of
where
the
contamination
``
has
come
to
be
located''
before
all
necessary
studies
and
remedial
work
are
completed
at
a
site.
Indeed,
the
boundaries
of
the
contamination
can
be
expected
to
change
over
time.
Thus,
in
most
cases,
it
may
be
impossible
to
describe
the
boundaries
of
a
release
with
absolute
certainty.
Further,
as
noted
above,
NPL
listing
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
Thus,
if
a
party
does
not
believe
it
is
liable
for
releases
on
discrete
parcels
of
property,
supporting
information
can
be
submitted
to
the
Agency
at
any
time
after
a
party
receives
notice
it
is
a
potentially
responsible
party.
For
these
reasons,
the
NPL
need
not
be
amended
as
further
research
reveals
51885
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
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.
To
date,
the
Agency
has
deleted
176
sites
from
the
NPL.

H.
Can
Portions
of
Sites
Be
Deleted
From
the
NPL
as
They
Are
Cleaned
Up?

In
November
1995,
EPA
initiated
a
new
policy
to
delete
portions
of
NPL
sites
where
cleanup
is
complete
(
60
FR
55465,
November
1,
1995).
Total
site
cleanup
may
take
many
years,
while
portions
of
the
site
may
have
been
cleaned
up
and
available
for
productive
use.
As
of
September
1998,
EPA
has
deleted
portions
of
11
sites.

I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(
CCL)?

EPA
also
has
developed
an
NPL
construction
completion
list
(``
CCL'')
to
simplify
its
system
of
categorizing
sites
and
to
better
communicate
the
successful
completion
of
cleanup
activities
(
58
FR
12142,
March
2,
1993).
Inclusion
of
a
site
on
the
CCL
has
no
legal
significance.
Sites
qualify
for
the
CCL
when:
(
1)
Any
necessary
physical
construction
is
complete,
whether
or
not
final
cleanup
levels
or
other
requirements
have
been
achieved;
(
2)
EPA
has
determined
that
the
response
action
should
be
limited
to
measures
that
do
not
involve
construction
(
e.
g.,
institutional
controls);
or
(
3)
The
site
qualifies
for
deletion
from
the
NPL.
In
addition
to
the
167
sites
that
have
been
deleted
from
the
NPL
because
they
have
been
cleaned
up
(
9
additional
sites
have
been
deleted
based
on
deferral
to
other
authorities
and
are
not
considered
cleaned
up),
an
additional
368
sites
are
also
on
the
NPL
CCL.
Thus,
as
of
September
1998,
the
CCL
consists
of
535
sites.
II.
Public
Review/
Public
Comment
A.
Can
I
Review
the
Documents
Relevant
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

Yes,
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
in
Washington,
D.
C.
and
in
the
appropriate
Regional
offices.

B.
How
Do
I
Access
the
Documents?

You
may
view
the
documents,
by
appointment
only,
in
the
Headquarters
or
the
appropriate
Regional
docket
after
the
appearance
of
this
proposed
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.
You
may
also
request
copies
from
EPA
Headquarters
or
the
appropriate
Regional
docket.
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.
Following
is
the
contact
information
for
the
EPA
Headquarters
docket
(
see
``
How
do
I
submit
my
comments?''
section
below
for
Regional
contacts):
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
Crystal
Gateway
#
1,
1st
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA
22202,
703/
603
 
9232.
(
Please
note
this
is
a
visiting
address
only.
Mail
comments
to
EPA
Headquarters
as
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble,
or
contact
Regional
offices
as
detailed
in
the
``
How
do
I
submit
my
comments?''
section
below.)

C.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Headquarters
Docket?

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.
D.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?

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.

E.
How
Do
I
Submit
My
Comments?

Comments
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
Headquarters
as
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble.
Regional
offices
may
be
reached
at
the
following:
Jim
Kyed,
Region
1
(
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
RI,
VT),
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
(
NJ,
NY,
PR,
VI),
U.
S.
EPA,
290
Broadway,
New
York,
NY
10007
 
1866,
212/
637
 
4435
Kevin
Wood,
U.
S.
EPA
Region
3,
1650
Arch
Street,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103,
Mail
Code:
3HS33,
215/
814
 
3303
Sherryl
Decker,
Region
4
(
AL,
FL,
GA,
KY,
MS,
NC,
SC,
TN),
U.
S.
EPA,
100
Alabama
Street,
SW,
Atlanta,
GA
30303,
404/
562
 
8127
Region
5
(
IL,
IN,
MI,
MN,
OH,
WI),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Waste
Management
Division
7
 
J,
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
IL
60604,
312/
886
 
7570
Brenda
Cook,
Region
6
(
AR,
LA,
NM,
OK,
TX),
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mail
Code
6SF
 
RA,
Dallas,
TX
75202
 
2733,
214/
655
 
7436
Carole
Long,
Region
7
(
IA,
KS,
MO,
NE),
U.
S.
EPA,
726
Minnesota
Avenue,
Kansas
City,
KS
66101,
913/
551
 
7224
David
Williams,
Region
8
(
CO,
MT,
ND,
SD,
UT,
WY),
U.
S.
EPA,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Denver,
CO
80202
 
2466,
303/
312
 
6757
Carolyn
Douglas,
Region
9
(
AZ,
CA,
HI,
NV,
AS,
GU),
U.
S.
EPA,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105,
415/
744
 
2343
David
Bennett,
Region
10
(
AK,
ID,
OR,
WA),
U.
S.
EPA,
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECL
 
115,
Seattle,
WA
98101,
206/
553
 
2103
F.
What
Happens
to
My
Comments?

EPA
considers
all
comments
received
during
the
comment
period.
Significant
comments
will
be
addressed
in
a
support
document
that
EPA
will
publish
concurrently
with
the
Federal
Register
document
if,
and
when,
the
site
is
listed
on
the
NPL.
51886
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
G.
What
Should
I
Consider
When
Preparing
My
Comments?

Comments
that
include
complex
or
voluminous
reports,
or
materials
prepared
for
purposes
other
than
HRS
scoring,
should
point
out
the
specific
information
that
EPA
should
consider
and
how
it
affects
individual
HRS
factor
values
or
other
listing
criteria
(
Northside
Sanitary
Landfill
v.
Thomas,
849
F.
2d
1516
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1988)).
EPA
will
not
address
voluminous
comments
that
are
not
specifically
cited
by
page
number
and
referenced
to
the
HRS
or
other
listing
criteria.
EPA
will
not
address
comments
unless
they
indicate
which
component
of
the
HRS
documentation
record
or
what
particular
point
in
EPA's
stated
eligibility
criteria
is
at
issue.

H.
Can
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
not
delaying
a
final
listing
decision
solely
to
accommodate
consideration
of
late
comments.

I.
Can
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
docket
approximately
one
week
after
the
formal
comment
period
closes.

J.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
Regarding
Sites
Not
Currently
Proposed
to
the
NPL?

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.

III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
the
NPL
Table
1
identifies
the
12
sites
in
the
General
Superfund
section
being
proposed
to
the
NPL
in
this
rule.
This
table
follows
this
preamble.
All
sites
are
proposed
based
on
HRS
scores
of
28.50
or
above.
The
sites
in
Table
1
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
an
HRS
score
that
falls
within
the
range
of
scores
covered
by
the
fourth
group
of
50
sites
on
the
NPL.

B.
Status
of
NPL
A
final
rule
published
elsewhere
in
today's
Federal
Register,
results
in
an
NPL
of
1,194
sites,
1,041
in
the
General
Superfund
section
and
153
in
the
Federal
Facilities
section.
With
this
proposal
of
12
new
sites,
there
are
now
66
sites
proposed
and
awaiting
final
agency
action,
57
in
the
General
Superfund
section
and
9
in
the
Federal
Facilities
section.
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
total
1,260.

IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
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
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.

B.
Is
This
Proposed
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
No,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
exempted
this
regulatory
action
from
Executive
Order
12866
review.

V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
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
for
which
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.

B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

No,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
include
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
to
either
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate.
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.
51887
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
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.

VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?

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.

B.
Does
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

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.

VII.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
A.
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
requires
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

B.
Does
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
No.
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
the
Agency
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

VIII.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
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
E.
O.
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.

B.
Does
Executive
Order
13045
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
This
rule
is
not
subject
to
E.
O.
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
E.
O.
12866,
and
because
it
does
not
involve
decisions
based
on
environmental
health
or
safety
risks.

IX.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
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.
The
information
collection
requirements
related
to
this
action
have
already
been
approved
by
OMB
pursuant
to
the
PRA
under
OMB
control
number
2070
 
0012
(
EPA
ICR
No.
574).

B.
Does
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

This
action
does
not
impose
any
burden
requiring
OMB
approval
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.

XI.
Executive
Order
12875
What
Is
Executive
Order
12875
and
Is
It
Applicable
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

Under
Executive
Order
12875,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute
and
that
creates
a
mandate
upon
a
State,
local
or
tribal
government,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
those
governments.
If
the
mandate
is
unfunded,
EPA
must
provide
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
State,
local
and
tribal
governments,
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
copies
of
any
written
communications
from
the
governments,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
12875
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
State,
local
and
tribal
governments
``
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
proposals
containing
significant
unfunded
mandates.''
This
final
rule
does
not
create
a
mandate
on
State,
local
or
tribal
governments.
The
rule
does
not
impose
any
enforceable
duties
on
these
entities.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
1(
a)
of
Executive
Order
12875
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.
51888
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
63,
No.
188
/
Tuesday,
September
29,
1998
/
Proposed
Rules
XII.
Executive
Order
13084
What
Is
Executive
Order
13084
and
Is
It
Applicable
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
tribal
governments.
If
the
mandate
is
unfunded,
EPA
must
provide
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
``
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.''
Today's
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments
because
it
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

TABLE
1.
 
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
PROPOSED
RULE
NO.
26,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
Group
CA
...................................
Lava
Cap
Mine
.......................................................
Nevada
City
...........................................................
21
CA
...................................
Omega
Chemical
Corporation
...............................
Whittier
...................................................................
22
MN
..................................
Fridley
Commons
Park
Well
Field
.........................
Fridley
....................................................................
4/
5
NJ
...................................
Middlesex
Sampling
Plant
.....................................
Middlesex
...............................................................
4/
5
NJ
...................................
United
States
Avenue
Burn
...................................
Gibbsboro
...............................................................
4/
5
NY
...................................
Hiteman
Leather
....................................................
West
Winfield
.........................................................
4/
5
NY
...................................
Mohonk
Road
Industrial
Plant
...............................
High
Falls
...............................................................
4/
5
NY
...................................
Smithtown
Ground
Water
Contamination
..............
Smithtown
..............................................................
4/
5
OK
..................................
Tulsa
Fuel
and
Manufacturing
...............................
Collinsville
..............................................................
4/
5
TX
...................................
City
of
Perryton
Well
No.
2
....................................
Perryton
..................................................................
4/
5
TX
...................................
Many
Diversified
Interests,
Inc
...............................
Houston
..................................................................
19
VT
...................................
Pownal
Tannery
.....................................................
Pownal
...................................................................
4/
5
Number
of
Sites
Proposed
to
General
Superfund
Section:
12.

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
22,
1998.
Timothy
Fields,
Jr.,
Acting
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[
FR
Doc.
98
 
25890
Filed
9
 
28
 
98;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
U
FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47
CFR
Part
68
[
CC
Docket
No.
98
 
163;
FCC
98
 
221]

1998
Biennial
Regulatory
Review
 
Modifications
to
Signal
Power
Limitations
AGENCY:
Federal
Communications
Commission.
ACTION:
Notice
of
proposed
rulemaking.

SUMMARY:
This
NPRM
proposes
increasing
the
signal
power
limitations
in
order
to
improve
the
transmission
rates
experienced
by
persons
using
high
speed
digital
information
products,
such
as
56
kilobits
per
second
(
kbps)
modems,
to
download
data
from
the
Internet.
Current
rules
limiting
the
signal
power
that
can
be
transmitted
over
telephone
lines
can
prohibit
such
products
from
operating
at
their
full
potential.
We
believe
that
these
signal
power
limitations
may
be
increased
without
causing
interference
or
other
technical
problems.
We
propose
increasing
the
signal
power
limitations
and
request
comment
on
the
benefits
and
harms,
if
any,
that
may
result
from
this
change.
Specifically,
this
change
will
allow
Pulse
Code
Modulation
(
PCM)
modems,
used
by
Internet
Service
Providers
(
ISPs)
and
other
online
information
service
providers
to
utilize
higher
signal
power
levels
to
transmit
data
at
moderately
higher
speeds.
DATES:
Comments
are
due
on
or
before
October
29,
1998,
and
reply
comments
are
due
on
or
before
November
13,
1998.
ADDRESSES:
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Room
222,
1919
M
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20554.
In
addition
to
filing
comments
with
the
Secretary,
an
electronic
and
a
paper
copy
of
any
comments,
reply
comments,
and
supporting
documents
should
be
submitted
to
Vincent
M.
Paladini,
Federal
Communications
Commission,
Common
Carrier
Bureau,
Network
Services
Division,
Room
235,
2000
M
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20554
or
via
the
Internet
to
vpaladin@
fcc.
gov.
Electronic
submissions
must
be
in
WordPerfect
5.1
for
Windows
format.
Comments
may
be
filed
using
the
Commission's
Electronic
Comment
Filing
System
(
ECFS)
or
by
filing
paper
copies.
See
Electronic
Filing
of
Documents
in
Rulemaking
Proceedings,
63
FR
24121
(
May
1,
1998).
Comments
filed
through
the
ECFS
can
be
sent
as
an
electronic
file
via
the
Internet
to
<
http:/
/
www.
fcc.
gov/
e­
file/
ecfs.
html>.
Generally,
only
one
copy
of
an
electronic
submission
must
be
filed.
If
multiple
docket
or
rulemaking
numbers
appear
in
the
caption
of
this
proceeding,
however,
commenters
must
transmit
one
electronic
copy
of
the
comments
to
each
docket
or
rulemaking
number
referenced
in
the
caption.
In
completing
the
transmittal
screen,
commenters
should
include
their
full
name,
Postal
Service
mailing
address,
and
the
applicable
docket
or
rulemaking
number.
Parties
may
also
submit
an
electronic
comment
by
Internet
e­
mail.
To
get
filing
instructions
for
e­
mail
comments,
commenters
should
send
an
e­
mail
to
ecfs@
fcc.
gov,
and
should
include
the
following
words
in
the
body
of
the
message,
``
get
form
<
your
e­
mail