56992
Federal
Repiister/
Vol.
64,
No.
204/
Fridav,
October
22.
1999/
ProDosed
Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[FRL­
6462­
2]

National
Priorities
List
for
Uncontrolled
Hazardous
Waste
Sites,
Proposed
Rule
No.
30
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

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
subskances,
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
CERCLA­

,
financed
remedial
action(
s)
,
if
any,
may
i
be
appropriate.
This
proposed
rule
proposes
to
add
9
new
sites
to
the
NPL.
All
of
the
sites
are
being
proposed
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL.
DATES:
Comments
regarding
any
of
these
proposed
listings
must
be'sybmitted
(postmarked)
on
or
before
December
2
1,
1999.
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,

By
Express
Mail:
Send
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
(no
facsimiles
or
tapes)
to
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters;
US.
EPA;
CERCLA
Docket
Office:
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway;
Crystal
Gateway
#I,
First
Floor;
Arlington,
VA
22202.

only
may
be
mailed
directly
to
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov.
E­
mailed
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
11,
"Public
Review/
Public
Comment,"
of
the
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION
portion
of
this
preamble.
DC
20460;
703/
603­
9232.

By
E­
Mail:
Comments
in
ASCII
format
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
YoIanda
Singer,
phone
(703)
603­
8835,
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
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
I.
What
is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(NPL)?

the
NPL
as
They
Are
Cleaned
Up?

(CCL)?
11.
Public
Review/
Public
Comment
A.
Can
I
Review
the
Documents
Relevant
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
Cominents?
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?
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

111.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
the
NPL
B.
Status
of
NPL
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12866?
€3.
Is
This
Proposed
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
What
is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(UMRA)?
B.
Does
UMRA
ADD~
V
to
This
Prouosed
Rule?
..
"

VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
is
t$
e
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?
B.
Has
EPA
Conducted
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
for
This
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
AUO~
V
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
1
1
_I
VIlI.
Executive
Order
12898
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12898?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Apply
to
IX.
Executive
Order
13045
this
Proposed
Rule?

A.
What
is
Executive
Order
13045?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
13045
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
X.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
What
is
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
B.
Does
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?

What
Are
The
Executive
Orders
on
XI.
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
Federalism
and
Are
They
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"),
Public
Law
99­
499,
100
Stat.
1613
etseq.
B.
What
Is
the
NCP?

promulgated
the
revised
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
("
NCP"),
40CFR
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).

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
actionfor
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)?
To
implement
CERCLA,
EPA
As
required
under
section
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,
Federal
Register
/Vol.
64,
No.
204/
Friday,
October
22,
1999
/Proposed
Rules
56993
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.
The
NPL
is
only
of
limited
significance,
however,
as
it
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
Neither
does
placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
mean
that
any
remedial
or
removal
action
necessarily
need
be
taken.
See
Report
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works,
Senate
Rep.
No.
96­
848,
96th
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
60
(1980),
48FR40659
(September
8,
1983).

includes
two
sections,
one
of
sites
that
are
generally
evaluated
and
cleaned
up
by
EPA,
(the
"General
Superfund
Section"),
and
one
of
sites
that
are
owned
or
operated
by
other
Federal
agencies
(the
"Federal
Facilities
Section").
With
respect
to
sites
in
the
Federal
Facilities
section,
these
sites
are
generally
being
addressed
by
other
Federal
agencies.
Under
Executive
Order
12580
(52
FR
2923,
January
29,
1987)
and
CERCLA
section
120,
each
Federal
agdncy
is
res,
ponsible
for
carrying
out
most
response
actions
at
facilities
under
its
own
jurisdiction,
custody,
or
control,
although
EPA
is
responsible
for
prepar$
ng
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
5
1532),
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
purposes
of
listing,
the
NPL
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(~)(
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
(see
42
U.
S.
C.
9605(
a)(
8)(
B));
(3)
The
third
mechanism
for
listing,
included
in.
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(~)(
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.

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
17,
1999
(64
FR
50459).
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)(
l).
("
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?

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
10
1
(9)),
the
listing
process
itself
is
not
intended
to
define
or
reflect
the
boundaries
of
such
facilities
or
releases.
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
be
more
The
NPL
does
not
describe
releases
in
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
i
s
listed,
the
approach
generally
used
to
describe
the
relevant
release(
s)
is
to
delineate
a
geographical
area
(usually
the
area
within
an
installation
or
plant
boundaries)
and
identify
the
site
by
reference
to
that
area.
As
a
legal
matter,
the
site
is
not
coextensive
with
that
area,
and
the
boundaries
of
the
installation
or
plant
are
not
the
"boundaries"
of
the
site.
Rather,
the
site
consists
of
all
contaminated
areas
within
the
area
used
to
identify
the
site,
as
well
as
any
other
location
to
which
contamination
from
that
area
has
come
to
be
located,
or
from
which
that
contamination
came.

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
o€
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
itselfshould
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
probelm
presented
by
the
release"
will
be
determined
by
a
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility
Study
("
RI/
FS")
as
more
inforriation
is
developed
on
site
contamination
(40
CFR
300.5).
During
the
RI/
FS
process,
the
release
may
be
found
to
be
larger
or
smaller
than
was
originally
thought,
as
more
is
learned
about
the
source(
s)
and
the
migration
of
the
contamination.
However,
this
inquiry
focuses
on
an
evaluation
of
the
threat
posed;
the
boundaries
of
the
release
need
not
be
exactly
defined.
Moreover,
it
generally
is
impossible
to
discover
the
full
extent
of
where
the
In
other
words,
while
geographic
56994
Federal
Register
/Vol.
64,
No.
204
/Friday,
October
22,
1999
/
Proposed
Rules
contamination
"has
come
to
be
located"
before
all
necessary
studies
and
remedial
work
are
completed
at
a
site.

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
pdrty.
For
these
reasons,
the
NPL
need
not
be
amended
as
further
research
reveals
more
information
about
the
location
of
the
contamination
or
release.
G.
How
Are
Sites
Removed
From
the
NPL?
EPA
may
delete
sites
from
the
NPL
where
no
further
response
is
appropriate
under
Superfund,
as
explained
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
e).
This
section
also
provides
that
EPA
shall
consult
with
states
on
proposed
deletions
and
shall
consider
whether
any
of
the
following
criteria
have
been
met:
(i)
Responsible
parties
or
other
persons
have
implemented
all
appropriate
response
actions
required;
(ii)
All
appropriate
Superfund­
financed
response
has
been
implemented
and
no
further
response
action
is
required;
or
(iii)
The
remedial
investigation
has
shown
the
release
poses
no
significant
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment,
and
taking
of
remedial
measures
is
not
appropriate.
As
of
October
12,
1999,
the
Agency
has
deleted
201
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
October
12,
1999,
EPA
has
'

deleted
portions
of
16
sites.
I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(CCL)?

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.
,
Indeed,
the
boundaries
of
the
EPA
also
has
developed
an
NPL
Sites
qualify
for
the
CCLwhen:
(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.
Of
the
20
1
sites
that
have
been
deleted
from
the
NPL,
192
sites
were
deleted
because
they
have
been
cleaned
up
(the
other
9
sites
were
deleted
based
on
deferral
to
other
authorities
and
are
not
considered
cleaned
up).
As
of
`October
12,
1999,
there
are
a
total
of
670
sites
on
the
CCL.
This
total
includes
the
192
deleted
sites.
For
the
most
up­
to­
date
information
on
the
CCL,
see
EPAs
Internet
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
Superfund.
11.
Public
Reviewlpublic
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
the
sites
in
this
rule
are
contained
in
dockets
located
both
at
EPA
Headquarters
in
Washington,
DC
and
in
the
Regional
offices.
B.
How
Do
I
Access
the
Documents?
You
may
view
the
documents,
by
appointment
only,
in
the
Headquarters
or
the
Regional
dockets
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
the
Regional
dockets
for
hours.
Following
is
the
contact
information
for
the
EPA
Headquarters
docket:
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.)
The
contact
information
for
the
Regional
dockets
is
as
follows:
Barbara
Callahan,
Region
1
(CT,
ME,
M
A
,
NH,
RI,
VT),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Mailcode
HSC,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA
02114­
2023;
617/
918­
1356
Ben
Conetta,
Region
2
(NJ,
N
Y
,
PR,
VI),
U.
S.
EPA,
290
Broadway,
New
York,
NY
10007­
1866;
212/
637­
4435
Dawn
Shellenberger
(GCI),
Region
3
(DE,
DC,
MD,
PA,
VA,
WV),
U.
S.
EPA,
Library,
1650
Arch
Street,
Mailcode
3PM52,
Philadelphia,
PA
19
103;
2
15/
814­
5364.
Joellen
O'Neill,
Region
4
(AL,
FL,
GA,
KY,
MS.
NC,
SC,
TN),
U.
S.
EPA,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
9th
floor,
Atlanta,

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/

Brenda
Cook,
Region
6
(AR,
LA,
NM,
OK,
TX),
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mailcode
6SF­
RA,
Dallas,

Carole
Long,
Region
7
(IA,
KS,
MO,
NE),
U.
S.
EPA,
901
North
5th
Street,
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,
Mailcode
8EPR­
SA,
Denver,
CO
80202­
2466;
303/
312­
6757.
Carolyn
Douglas,
Region
9
(AZ,
CA,
HI,
N
V
,
AS,
GU),
U.
S.
EPA,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105;
4151
GA
30303;
404/
562­
8127.

886­
7570.

TX
75202­
2733;
214/
665­
7436.

744­
2343.
David
Bennett,
Region
10
(AK,
ID,
OR,
WA),
U.
S.
EPA,
1
lth
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECL­
115,
Seattle,

You
may
also
request
copies
from
EPA
Headquarters
or
the
Regional
dockets.
An
informal
request,
rather
than
a
formal
written
request
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
should
be
the
qrdinary
procedure
for
obtaining
copies
of
any
of
these
documents.
C.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Headquarters
Docket?
The
Headquarters
docket
for
this
rule
contains:
HRS
score
sheets
for
the
proposed
site;
a
Documentation
Record
for
the
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.
D.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?
The
Regional
dockets
for
this
rule
contain
all
of
the
information
in
the
Headquarters
docket,
plus,
the
actual
reference
documents
containing
the
data
principally
relied
upon
and
cited
by
EPA
in
calculating
or
evaluating
the
HRS
score
for
the
sites.
These
reference
documents
are
available
only
in
the
Regional
dockets.
E.
'How
DO
I
Submit
My
Comments?
­
Comments
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
Headquarters
as
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble
in
the
ADDRESSES
section.
Please
note
that
the
WA
98101;
206/
553­
2103.
Federal
Register/
Vol.
64,
No.
204
/Friday,
October
22,
1999
/Proposed
Rules
56995
addresses
differ
according
to
method
of
comment
period.
Site­
specific
B.
Is
This
Proposed
Rule
Subject
to
delivery.
There
are
two
different
correspondence
received
prior
to
the'
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
addresses
that
depend
on
whether
period
Of
formal
proposal
and
comment
NO,
the
Office
of
Management
and
comments
are
sent
by
express
mail
Or
by
will
not
generally
be
included
in
the
Budget
(OMB)
has
exempted
this
postal
mail.
docket.
regulatory
action
from
Executive
Order
F.
What
Happens
to
MY
Comments?
III.
`Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
during
the
comment
period.
Significant
comments
will
be
addressed
in
a
A.
What
Is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
support
document
that
EPA
Will
Publish
proposing
to
add
9
new
sites
to
the
NPL;
Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
concunentl~
with
the
Federal
Register
a11
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMm),
public
document
if,
and
when,
the
site
is
listed
the
NPL.
The
sites
are
bekg
proposed
on
a
e
NPL.
G.
What
Should
I
Consider
When
The
Sites
being
Proposed
in
this
rule
are
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
Preparing
My
Comments?
presented
in
Table
1
which
fOllows
this
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
voluminous
reports,
or
materials
B.
Status
of
NPL
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
prepared
for
purposes
other
than
HRS
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
scoring,
should
point
out
the
specific
A
final
rule
published
elsewhere
in
analysis,
for
Proposed
and
final
rules
information
that
EPA
should
consider
today's
Federal
Register
finalizes
10
with
mandates"
that
and
how
it
affects
individual
HRS
factor
sites
to
the
NPL;
resulting
i
n
a
n
NPLof
result
in
by
local,
.
values
or
other
listing
criteria
1,221
final
sites;
1,062
in
the
General
and
tribal
governments*
in
the
(Northside
Sanitary
Landfill
v.
Thomas,
Superfund
Section
and
159
in
the
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
849
F.
2d
1516
(D.
C.
Cir.
1988));
EPA
Federal
Facilities
Section.
With
this
will
not
address
voluminous
comments
proposal
of
9
new
sites,
there
are
now
that
are
not
Specifically
cited
by
Page
57
sites
proposed
and
awaiting
final
uMRA
generally
re&
ires
EpA
to
number
and
referenced
to
the
HRS
or
agency
action,
52
in
the
General
other
listing
criteria.
EPA
will
not
Superfund
Section
and
5
in
the
Federal
identify
number
of
and
regulatory
consider
alternatives
a
reasonable
address
comments
unless
they
indicate
~~~i
l
i
~~~
section.
~i
~~l
and
proposed
which
component
of
the
HRS
sites
now
total
1,278.
(These
numbers
effective,
adopt
the
or
least
least
costly,
burdensome
most
cost­
documentation
record
or
what
particular
point
in
EPk's
stated
eligibility
criteria
is
at
issue.
H.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
After
the
the
Federal
Register.)
Public
Comment
Period
Is
Over?

late
comments.
EPA
can
only
guarantee
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order12866?
costly,
mostcost­
effective,
or
least
t
h
a
t
will
consider
those
comments
burdensome
alternative
if
the
postmarked
by
the
close
of
the
formalUnderExecutiveOrder12866,
(58
FR
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
comment
period.
EpA
has
a
policy
of
51735
(October
41
1993))
the
'
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
not
delaying
a
final
listlng
decision
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
was
not
adopted.
BeforeEPA
establishes
solely
to
accommodate,
consideration
of
action
is
"Significant"
and
therefore
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
late
comments.
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
I.
Can
I
View
Public
Comments
requirements
of
the
ExecutiveOrder.
governments,
including
tribal
Submitted
by
Others?
The
Order
defines
"significant
governments,
it
musthave
deve1o"
ped
regulatory
action"
as
one
that
is
likely
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
During
the
comment
period,
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(1)
Have
an
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
comments
are
placed
in
the
annual
effect
on
the,
economy
of
$100
provide
for
notifying
potentially
Headquarters
docket
and
are
available
to
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
affected
small
governments,
enabling
the
public
on
an
"as
received"
basis.
A
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
officials
of
affected
small
governments
complete
set
of
comments
will
be
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
available
for
viewing
in
the
Regional
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
the
development
of
EPA#
regulatory
docket
approGmatelY
one
week
after
the
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
proposals
with
significant
Federal
formalcomment
period
closes.
governments
or
communities;
(2)
create
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
J.
Can
I
Submit
Cornen&
Regarding
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
informing*
educating,
and
advising
Sites
Not
CurrentlyProposed
to
the
interfere
with
an
action
takenor
small
governments
on
compliance
with
NPL?
planned
by
another
agency;
(3)
the
regulatory
requirements.

ln
certain
instances,
interested
parties
maferially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Proposed
have
written
to
EPA
concerning
sites
entltlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
Rule?
which
were
not
at
that
time
proposed
to
Programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
No,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
the
NPL.
If
those
sites
are
later
proposed
recipients
thereof;
Or
(4)
raise
novel
does
not
c0ntain.
a
Federal
mandate
that
to
the
NPL,
parties
should
review
their
legal
Or
PolicYiSSueS
arising
out
of
legal
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$100
earlier
concerns
and,
if
still
appropriate,
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
resubmit
those
concerns
for
the
PrincipIes
set
forth
in
the
Executive
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate,
or
consideration
during
the
formal
Order.
by
the
private
sector
in
any
one
ye?.
12866
review.

EPA
considers
all
comments
received
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
he
NpL
V.
Unfunded
Mandates
With
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
Reform
Act
(UMRA?

Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
based
on
HRS
Scores
Of
28.50
Or
above­
Federal
Agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
Comments
that
include
complex
orpreamble.
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,

statement
is
needed
section
205
of
the
reflect
the
status
of
sites
as
of
October
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
12,
1999.
Sites
deletions
may
affect
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
these
numbers
at
time
of
publication
in
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
Generally,
EPA
will
not
respond
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
56996
Federal
Register/
Vol.
64,
No.
204/
Friday,
October
22,
1999/
Proposed
Rules
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.
Listhg
does
not
mean
that
EPA
necessarily
will
undertake
remedial
action.
Nor
does
listing
require
any
action
by
a
private
party
or
determine
liability
for
response
costs.
Costs
that
arise
out
of
site
responses
.
result
from
site­
specific
decisions
regarding
what
actions
to
take,
not
directly
from
the
act
of
listing
a
site
on
the
NPL.
For
the
same
reasons,
EPA
also
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
In
addition,
as
discussed
above,
the
private
sector
is
not
expected
to
incur
costs
exceeding
$100
million.
EPA
has
fulfilled
the
requirement
for
analysis
under
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act.
VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
.
Act?
Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(SBREFA)
of
1996)
whenever
an
agency
is
required
to
publish
a
notice
of
rulemaking
for
any
proposed
or
final
rule,
it
must
prepare
and
make
available
for
public
comment
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
describes
the'effect
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
(Le.,
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
SBREFA
amended.
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
require
Federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
,basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
B.
Has
EPA
Conducted
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
for
This
Rule?

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
No.
While
this
rule
proposes
to
revise
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
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
The
Agency
does
expect
that
placing
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(NTTAA),
Public
Law
104­
113,
section
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.
B.
Does
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
NO.
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.
VIII.
Executive
Order
12898
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12898?
Under
Executive
Order
12898,
"Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,"
as
well
as
through
EPAs
April
1995,
"Environmental
Justice
Strategy,
OSWER
Environmental
justice
Task
Force
Action
Agenda
Report,"
and
National
Environmental
justice
Advisory
Council,
EPA
has
undertaken
to
incorporate
environmental
justice
into
its
policies
and
programs.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
.
justice
concerns,
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
df
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
axe
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
all
people
live
in
clean
and
sustainable
communities.
B.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
No.
While
this
rule
proposes
to
revise
the
NPL,
no
action
will
result
from
this
proposal
that
will
have
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
on
any
segment
of
the
population.
IX.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13045?

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
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
E.
O.
13045
because
it
is
not
an
economically
significant
rule
as
defined
by
E.
O.
12866,
and
because
the
Agency
Executive
Order
13045:
"Protection
of
Federal
Register/
Vol.
64,
No.
204/
Friday,,
October
22,
1999
/Proposed
Rules
56997
,does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
proposed
rule
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
X.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
What
Is
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?

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?

.does
not
apply
because
this
rule
does
not.
contain
any
information
collection
requirements
that
require
approval
of
the
OMB.

XI.
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
What
Are
The
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
and
Are
They
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,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
According
to
the
Paperwork
No.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
PRA
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
12875
requires
EPA
to
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,
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."

mandate
on
State,
local
or
tribal
governments.
The
proposed
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
proposed
rule.
On
August
4,
1999,
President
Clinton
issued
a
new
executive
order
on
federalism,
Executive
Order
13132,
(64
FR
43255
(August
10,
1999),)
which
will
take
effect
on
November
2,
1999.
In
the
interim,
the
current
Executive
Order
12612
(52
FR
4168'5
(October
30,
1987),)
on
federalism
still
applies.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
have
a
substantial
direct
effect
#on
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
126
12.
This
proposed
rule
will
not
result
in
the
imposition
of
any
additional
requirements
on
any
State,
local
governments
or
other
political
subdivisions
within
any
State.
Accordingly,
the
requirements.
of
This
proposed
rule
does
not
create
a
section
6(
c)
of
Executive
Order
12612
do
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

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,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
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
gavernments,
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
officials
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."

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
proposed
rule.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
.
TABLE
1
.­
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
PROPOSED
RULE
NO.
30,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
CA
.................

Intermountain
Waste
Oil
Refinery
.......................................................................................................
UT
.................
Macalloy
Corporation
...........................................................................................................................
SC
.................
Centredale
Manor
Restoration
Project
................................................................................................
RI
..................
Scorpio
Recycling,
Inc.
........................................................................................................................
PR
.................
Lawrence
Aviation
Industries,
Inc.
......................................................................................................
NY
.................
JacksonSteel
......................................................................................................................................
NY
.................
Marion
Pressure
Treating
....................................................................................................................
LA
.................
TransCircuit,
Inc.
................................................................................................................................
FL
..................
LeviathanMine
....................................................................................................................................

Number
of
Sites
Proposed
to
General
Superfund
Section:
9.
Cityhunty
Alpine
County.
Lake
Park.
Marion.
MineolalNorth
Hempstead.
Port
Jefferson
Station.
Candeleria
Ward.
North
Providence.
North
Charleston.
Bountiful.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
300
Intergovernmental
relations,
Natural
requirements,
SuDerfund,
Water
Environmental
protection,
Air
resources,
Oil
pollution,
Penalties,
poilution
control:
Water
supply.
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
c)(
2);
42
U.
S.
C.
substances,
Hazardous
waste,
9601­
9657;
E.
O.
12777,56
FR
54757,3
CFR,
56998
Federal
Register
/Vol.
64,
No.
204
/Friday,
October
._
.
22,
1999
/Proposed
Rules
1,991
Comp.,
p.
351;
E.
O.
12580,52
FR
2923,
3
CFR,
1987
Comp.,
p.
193.
Dated:
October
15,
1999.
Timothy
Fields,
Jr.,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[FR
Doc.
99­
27538
Filed
10­
21­
99;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560­
504
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
710
[OPPTS­
82053&
FRL­
6388­
I]

RIN
2070­
AC61
'

TSCA
Inventory
Update
Rule
Amendments;
Extension
of
Comment
Period
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
@PA)
.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
extension
of
,comment
period.

SUMMARY:
EPA
is
extending
the
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule
to
amend
the
TSCA
Inventory
Update
Rule
OUR)
published
on
August
26,
1999.
In
response
to
several
requests,
the
comment
period
is
being
extended
by
60
days
until
December
24,
1999.
The
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule
was
scheduled
to
close
on
October
25,
1999.
Under
section
8(
a)
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(TSCA),
EPA
currently
requires
manufacturers
(including
importers)
of
certain
chemical
substances
and
mixtures
on
the
TSCA
Chemical
Substances
Inventory
to
report
current
data
regarding
production
volume,
plant
site
information,
and
site­
limited
status.
The
proposed
rule
requires
the
reporting
of
additional
data
that
would
assist
EPA
in
evaluating
potential
exposures
and
risks
resulting
from
industrial
chemical
operations
and
commercial
and
consumer
uses
of
cfiemical
substances.
The
proposed,
rule
also
modifies
reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements,
removes
one
reporting
exemption
and
creates
others,
and
modifies
confidential
business
information
(CBI)
reporting
and
retention
procedures.
Infdrmation
from
the
proposed
IUK
Amendments
will
help
both
EPA
and
the
public
better
identify
and
mitigate
potential
exposures
and
risks
associated
with
TSCA
chemicals.
DATES:
Comments,
identified
by
docket
control
number
OPPTS­
82053,
must
be
received
by
EPA
on
or
before
December
24,
1999.
ADDRESSES:
Comments
may
be
submitted
by
mail,
electronically,
or
in
person.
Please
follow
the
detailed
instructions
for
each
method
as
provided
in
Unit
III.
of
the
"SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION."
To
ensure
proper
receipt
by
EPA,
it
is
imperative
that
you
identlfy
docket
control
number
OPPTS­
82053
in
the
subject
line
of
the
first
page
of
your
response.

general
information
contact
Christine
M.
Augustyniak,
Associate
Director,
Environmental
Assistance
Division
(7408),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460;
telephone:
(202)
554­
1404,
TDD:
(202)
554­
0551;
e­
mail:
TSCA­
Hotline@
epa.
gov.
For
technical
information
contact
Susan
Krueger,
Project
Manager,
Economics,
Exposure
and
Technology
Division
(7406),
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC
20460:
telephone:
(202)
260­
1713,
fax:
(202)
260­
1661;
e­
mail:
krueger.
susan@
epa.
gov.

I.
Does
this
Action
Apply
to
Me?
You
may
be
potentially
affected
by.
this
action
if
you
manufacture
or
import
chemical
substances
and
mixtures
currently
subject
to
reporting
under
the
Inventory
Update
Rule
OUR)
at
40
CFR
part
710
or
manufacture
or
import
inorganic
chemical
substances.
In
the
past,
processors
of
chemical
substances
have
not
been
required
to
comply
with
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
part
710.
The
proposed
amendments
do
not
change
the
status
of
processors
under
the
regulations
at
40
CFR
part
710.
Potentially
affected
categories
and
entities
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
For
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Category
NAICS
Chemical
ers
and
im­
porters
Potentially
Reg­
Examples
of
ulated
Persons
Chemical
man­
ufacturers
(in­
cluding
im­
porters)
cur­
rently
subject
to
IUR
report­
ing
Chemical
man­
ufacturers
(in­
cluding
im­
porters)
of
in­
organic
chemical
sub­
stances
This
listing
is
not
intended
to
be
exhaustive,
but
rather
provides
a
guide
for
readers
regarding
entities
likely
to
be
regulated
by
this
action.
Other
types
of
entities
not
listed
above
could
also
be
affected.
The
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(NAICS)
codes
have
been
provided
to
assist
you
and
others
in
determining
whether
or
not
this
action
applies
to
certain
entities.
To
determine
whether
you
or
your
business
is
affected
by
this
action,
you
should
carefully
examine
the
applicability
provisions
in.
40
CFR
part
710.
If
you
have
questions
regarding
the
applicability
of
this
action
to
a
particular
entity,
consult
the
technical
person
listed
under
"FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT."
11.
How
Can
I
Get
Additional
Information
or
Copies
of
this
Document
or
Other
Documents?

1.
Electronically.
You
may
obtain
elecironic
copies
of
this
document
and
various
support
documents
from
the
EPA
Internet
Home
Page
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/.
On
the
Home
Page
select
"Laws
and
Regulations"
and
then
look
up
the
entry
for
this
document
under
the
"Federal
Register­­
Environmental
Documents."
You
can
also
go
directly
to
the
"Federal
Register"
listings
at
http:/
/www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
In
addition,
electronic
copies
of
this
document
and
various
support
documentsmay
be
accessed
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
iuramend.
2.
In
person.
The
Agency
has
established
an
official
record
for
this
action
under
docket
control
number
OPPTS­
82053.
The
official
record
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received
during
an
applicable
comment
period,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action,
including
any
information
claimed
as
CBI.
This
official
record
includes
the
documents
that
are
physically
located
in
the
docket,
as
well
as
the
documents
that
are
referenced
in
those
documents.
The
public
version
of
the
official
record
does
not
include
any
information
claimed
as
CBI.
The
public
version
of
the
official
record,
which
includes
printed,
paper
versions
of
any
electronic
comments
submitted
during
an
applicable
comment
period,
is
available
for
inspection
in
the
TSCA
Nonconfidential
Information
Center,
Rm.
NE­
B607,
Waterside
Mall,`
40
1
M
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC.
The
Center
is
open
from
noon
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Center
is
(202)
260­
7099.
III.
How
and
to
Whom
Do
I
Submit
Comments?

As
described
in
Unit
LC.
of
the
proposed
rule
published
in
the
Federal
