

[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Proposed Rules]               
[Page 20052-20059]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19ap06-34]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-
0250, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2006-0258; FRL-8159-4]
RIN 2050-AD75

 
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 
Proposed Rule No. 44

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires that 
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 
(``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known 
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List 
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide 
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in 
determining which sites warrant further investigation. These further 
investigations will allow EPA to assess the nature and extent of public 
health and environmental risks associated with the site and to 
determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be 
appropriate. This rule proposes to add four new sites to the NPL, all 
to the General Superfund Section. This rule also proposes to restore 
one site to the NPL and withdraws one site from proposal to the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be 
submitted (postmarked) on or before June 19, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Identify the appropriate FDMS Docket Number from the table 
below.

                                                       FDMS Docket Identification Numbers by Site
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Site name                                       City/state                                         FDMS docket ID number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO Taylor Springs...................  Taylor Springs, IL....................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant.........  De Soto, KS...........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0258
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek........  Gibbsboro, NJ.........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242
Ringwood Mines/Landfill.................  Ringwood, NJ..........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252
Matteo & Sons, Inc......................  Thorofare, NJ.........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247
Maunabo Urbano Public Wells.............  Maunabo, PR...........................................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0250
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 20053]]

    Submit your comments, identified by the appropriate FDMS Docket 
number, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments.
     E-mail: superfund.Docket@epa.gov
     Fax: (202) 566-0224
     Mail: Mail comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket 
Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA 
Docket Office; (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Express Mail: Send comments (no 
facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 
Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room B102, Washington, DC 20004. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of 
operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding 
Federal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries 
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the appropriate FDMS Docket 
number (see table above). EPA's policy is that all comments received 
will be included in the public Docket without change and may be made 
available online at  http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed 
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information 
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website 

is an ``anonymous access'' system, that means EPA will not know your 
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of 
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without 
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be 

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is 
placed in the public Docket and made available on the Internet. If you 
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name 
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any 
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to 
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA 
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of 
any defects or viruses. For additional Docket addresses and further 
details on their contents, see section II, ``Public Review/Public 
Comment,'' of the Supplementary Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Jeng, phone (703) 603-8852, 
State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and 
Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology 
Innovation (Mail Code 5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund 
Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, 
metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What Is the NCP?
    C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are 
Cleaned Up?
    I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
    B. How Do I Access the Documents?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the 
Headquarters Docket?
    D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the 
Regional Dockets?
    E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
    F. What Happens to My Comments?
    G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
    H. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is 
Over?
    I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
    J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed 
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Proposal To Restore Site to the NPL
    C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 
Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This 
Proposed Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
Apply to This Proposed Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or 
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or 
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant 
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to 
the public health or welfare. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, 
by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public 
Law 99-499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR part 
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened 
releases of hazardous substances, or releases or substantial threats of 
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may 
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or 
welfare. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent 
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also

[[Page 20054]]

includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or 
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of 
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into 
account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking 
removal action.'' ``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include a 
wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise 
address releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, 
pollutants or contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).

C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is appendix 
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) 
of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as 
a list of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and 
requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended 
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further 
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and 
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances, 
pollutants or contaminants. The NPL is only of limited significance, 
however, as it does not assign liability to any party or to the owner 
of any specific property. Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean 
that any remedial or removal action necessarily need be taken.
    For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of 
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General 
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by 
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With 
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are 
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. Under Executive 
Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 
Federal agency is responsible for carrying out most response actions at 
facilities under its own jurisdiction, custody, or control, although 
EPA is responsible for preparing a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score 
and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. At Federal 
Facilities Section sites, EPA's role is less extensive than at other 
sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for 
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP): (1) A site 
may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high on the Hazard 
Ranking System (``HRS''), that EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP 
(40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the 
relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants or 
contaminants to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On 
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS 
partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised 
HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil 
exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL; (2) Pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its 
top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This 
provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL 
include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to 
public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in 
the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP 
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any 
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
     The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory 
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
     EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat 
to public health.
     EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use 
its remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to 
the release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 
(48 FR 40658) and generally has updated it at least annually.

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund 
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'') 
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * 
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing 
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA 
may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to the releases, 
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance has ``come to be located'' (CERCLA 
section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to define 
or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, 
HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. 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 where that contamination has come to be 
located, or from where that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. 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 name ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not 
imply that the Jones

[[Page 20055]]

company is responsible for the contamination located on the plant site.
    EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the problem 
presented by the release'' will be determined by a Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') as more information is 
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS 
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was 
originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the 
migration of the contamination. However, 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 more information about the location of the contamination or 
release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is 
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the 
following criteria have been met: (i) Responsible parties or other 
persons have implemented all appropriate response actions required; 
(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been implemented 
and no further response action is required; or (iii) The remedial 
investigation has shown the release poses no significant threat to 
public health or the environment, and taking of remedial measures is 
not appropriate.

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are Cleaned 
Up?

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

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

    EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list 
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better 
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal 
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when: (1) Any necessary physical 
construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other 
requirements have been achieved; (2) EPA has determined that the 
response action should be limited to measures that do not involve 
construction (e.g., institutional controls); or (3) The site qualifies 
for deletion from the NPL. For the most up-to-date information on the 
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.


II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring 
of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located both 
at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by 
electronic access at http://www.regulations.gov (see instructions in 

the ADDRESSES section above).

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the 
Headquarters or the Regional Dockets after the publication of this 
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters Docket are 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal 
holidays. Please contact the Regional Dockets for hours.
    The following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters 
Docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 
B102, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276. (Please note this is a 
visiting address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at 
the beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund 
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, 
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New 
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA, 
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-5364.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 
Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records 
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-5821.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 
18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-2466; 303/
312-6463.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097.
Denise Baker, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, 
Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-4303.

    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional 
Dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request 
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure 
for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
    You may use the Docket at http://www.regulations.gov to access 

documents in the Headquarters Docket (see instructions included in the 
ADDRESSES section above). Please note that there are differences 
between the Headquarters Docket and the Regional Dockets and those 
differences are outlined below.

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

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains the following for 
the sites proposed in this rule: HRS score sheets; Documentation 
Records describing the information used to compute the score;

[[Page 20056]]

information for any sites affected by particular statutory requirements 
or EPA listing policies; and a list of documents referenced in the 
Documentation Record.

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

    The Regional Dockets for this rule contain all of the information 
in the Headquarters Docket, plus, the actual reference documents 
containing the data principally relied upon and cited by EPA in 
calculating or evaluating the HRS score for the sites. These reference 
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets.

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

    Comments must be submitted to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the 
beginning of this preamble in the ADDRESSES section. Please note that 
the mailing addresses differ according to method of delivery. There are 
two different addresses that depend on whether comments are sent by 
express mail or by postal mail.

F. What Happens to My Comments?

    EPA considers all comments received during the comment period. 
Significant comments 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.

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. May I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is Over?

    Generally, EPA will not respond to late comments. EPA can only 
guarantee that it will consider those comments postmarked by the close 
of the formal comment period. EPA has a policy of generally not 
delaying a final listing decision solely to accommodate consideration 
of late comments.

I. May I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?

    During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters 
Docket and are available to the public on an ``as received'' basis. A 
complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the Regional 
Dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.
    All public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in the electronic public 
Docket at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without 

change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential 
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Once in the public Dockets system, select 
``search,'' then key in the appropriate Docket ID number.

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

    In certain instances, interested parties have written to EPA 
concerning sites that were not at that time proposed to the NPL. If 
those sites are later proposed to the NPL, parties should review their 
earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, resubmit those concerns for 
consideration during the formal comment period. Site-specific 
correspondence received prior to the period of formal proposal and 
comment will not generally be included in the Docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    In today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add four new sites to 
the NPL; all to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. All of the 
sites in this proposed rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS 
scores of 28.50 or above. The sites are presented in the table below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                  Site name            City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL...........................  ASARCO Taylor      Taylor Springs.
                                Springs.
NJ...........................  Sherwin-Williams/  Gibbsboro.
                                Hilliards Creek.
NJ...........................  Matteo & Sons,     Thorofare.
                                Inc.
PR...........................  Maunabo Urbano     Maunabo.
                                Public Wells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposal To Restore Site to NPL

    Pursuant to CERCLA Sec.  105(e) and 40 CFR Sec.  300.425(e)(3), 
whenever there has been a significant release of hazardous substances 
or pollutants or contaminants from a site that has been deleted from 
the NPL, EPA can restore the site to the NPL without application of the 
HRS.
    EPA is proposing to restore to the NPL the Ringwood Mines/Landfill 
site in Passaic, New Jersey based on new data from a Field 
Reconnaissance Survey of the site completed in October 2005. The report 
is available through the Superfund Docket at http://www.regulations.gov 

(see Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252).
    The Ringwood Mines/Landfill site was added to the NPL on September 
1, 1983 and deleted from the NPL on November 2, 1994.

C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL

    EPA is withdrawing the proposal to add the Sunflower Army 
Ammunition Plant in De Soto, Kansas to the NPL. The proposed rule can 
be found at 60 FR 8212 (February 13, 1995). Refer to the Docket ID 
Number EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0258 for supporting documentation regarding 
this action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review 
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more or adversely affect in a

[[Page 20057]]

material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious 
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by 
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of 
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations 
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory 
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA 
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined 
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB 
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB 
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, 
are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 
EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this rule does 
not contain any information collection requirements that require 
approval of the OMB.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and 
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to 
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; 
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; 
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996) whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). 
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of 
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a 
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This proposed rule listing sites on the NPL, if promulgated, would 
not impose any obligations on any group, including small entities. This 
proposed rule, if promulgated, also would establish no standards or 
requirements that any small entity must meet, and would impose no 
direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity, small or 
otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of hazardous 
substances depends on whether that entity is liable under CERCLA 
107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site is 
listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, would not impose any requirements on any small entities. 
For the foregoing reasons, I certify that this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule where a written statement is 
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and 
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the 
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do 
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal 
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for 
State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector in any one year. This rule will not impose any Federal 
intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon 
State, tribal or local governments. Listing a

[[Page 20058]]

site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing does not mean 
that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor does listing 
require any action by a private party or determine liability for 
response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses result from 
site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not directly 
from the act of listing a site on the NPL.
    For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the 
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. 
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed 
Rule?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless 
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks

1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Proposed Rule?
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it is not an economically significant rule as defined by Executive 
Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the 
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this proposed rule 
present a disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant 
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note), directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards 
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA 
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides 
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to 
This Proposed Rule?
    No. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. 
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus 
standards.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, 
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water 
supply.


    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.


[[Page 20059]]


    Dated: April 12, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 06-3667 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
