[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51368-51375]
[DOCID:fr03se08-12]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0086, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0085, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-
0081, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0082, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0690, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2008-0084; FRL-8710-8]
RIN 2050-AD75

National Priorities List, Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. 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 adds six sites to the General Superfund Section
of the NPL.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is October 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see section II,
``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Myers, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch,
Assessment and Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> 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)?
    J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
    B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional
Dockets?
    D. How Do I Access the Documents?
    E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Final 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 Final 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 Final Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final
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 Final 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 Final 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 Final Rule?
    J. Congressional Review Act
    1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
    2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
    3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This 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
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. 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. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 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. 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 HRS,
which EPA promulgated as appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The
HRS serves as a screening tool to evaluate the relative potential of
uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutant 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. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
    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. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily 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. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. For
example, the name

``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 Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (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, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore 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 known 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, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it 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.
    (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 made 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.

J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?

    The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to http://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

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

    Yes, documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the sites
in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA
Headquarters and in the Regional offices.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification
numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in
section II D.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Site name                      City/state                         FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iron King Mine--Humboldt Smelter..  Dewey-Humboldt, AZ........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0086.
Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock  Creede, CO................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0085.
Flash Cleaners....................  Pompano Beach, FL.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0081.
Aberdeen Contaminated Ground Water  Aberdeen, NC..............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0082.
East Troy Contaminated Aquifer....  Troy, OH..................  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0690.
Old Esco Manufacturing............  Greenville, TX............  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2008-0084.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Headquarters Docket for this rule contains, for each site, the
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list
of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.

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

    The Regional Dockets contain all the information in the
Headquarters Docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the
HRS score for the sites located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional Dockets. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this 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.
    Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 3340,
Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-1744.
    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, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; 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.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/463-1349.

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under the Superfund sites category)
or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following six sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           State                   Site name            City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ.........................  Iron King Mine--      Dewey-Humboldt.
                              Humboldt Smelter.
CO.........................  Nelson Tunnel/        Creede.
                              Commodore Waste
                              Rock.
FL.........................  Flash Cleaners......  Pompano Beach.
NC.........................  Aberdeen              Aberdeen.
                              Contaminated Ground
                              Water.
OH.........................  East Troy             Troy.
                              Contaminated
                              Aquifer.
TX.........................  Old Esco              Greenville.
                              Manufacturing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

    EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments.
    Six sites are being finalized in this rule. Comments related to one
site, East Troy Contaminated Aquifer (OH), are being addressed
individually in a Support Document available concurrently with the
publication of this final rule. Please refer to the docket for EPA's
responses to comments for that site. One general comment, and comments
submitted on the other five sites being finalized, are addressed below.
    EPA received a late comment, stating that EPA's process for adding
sites to the NPL does not meet notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and urging
that EPA provide additional information beyond that which it already
does, in order to facilitate a dialogue with interested parties on why
the site was chosen for addition to the NPL. In response, EPA's process
for adding sites to the NPL complies with the APA. EPA agrees generally
with the commenter that a dialogue with interested parties is useful to
inform listing decisions, but believes there are many opportunities for
such a dialogue throughout the Superfund cleanup process before listing
a site on the NPL.
    Typically for a prospective site (and in accordance with the long-
standing procedures in the NCP), EPA conducts a preliminary assessment
(PA), and documents its findings in a public report. Based on the PA,
EPA may then conduct a more comprehensive site inspection (SI), the
results of which are also documented in a public report. An SI
typically involves gathering sampling data (by being physically at or
near the site) and gathering additional assessment data by contacting
the state and other parties, such as landowners at or near the site.
These early efforts put interested parties on notice of EPA's interest
in the site. When EPA proposes to list a site, EPA provides its
detailed rationale in documents publicly available at EPA Headquarters
in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices, and by electronic access at
http://www.regulations.gov. If the site is affected by any particular
CERCLA statutory requirements or EPA listing policies, site-specific
discussions of those statutory requirements or listing policies are
included as part of the docket materials for public review and comment.
Commenters have the opportunity to raise any comments they may have on
the proposed action, including raising any policy concerns regarding
the propriety of using the Superfund process to address the site.
Indeed, EPA often gets comments of this nature on its proposed sites,
and responds to those comments before it makes any final decision to
list a site on the NPL.

    No comments were received on Flash Cleaners (FL) and Aberdeen
Contaminated Groundwater (NC). EPA received three comments on the Old
Esco Manufacturing site. To the extent they addressed the listing
action, they favored it.
    One comment was received for the Nelson Tunnel/Commodore Waste Rock
(CO) site. That comment, from a community organization, supported
listing and presented a preferred alternative treatment involving the
collection and treatment of effluent before discharge to the Rio
Grande. Additional cleanup suggestions were also made. In response,
although final cleanup decisions rest with EPA, EPA will work with the
community and State and take the suggestions by the commenter into
account before any decision is made.
    Three comments were received on the Iron King Mine-Humboldt Smelter
site. One comment supported listing. A second comment asked two
questions relevant to the listing, namely what specific properties were
included in the site, and whether this included the commenter's
property. In response, as described above, the site includes all areas
where a hazardous substance has come to be located. EPA needs to do
further study of the site before determining whether a specific
property will be included. The third comment submitted on the site was
from Kuhles Capital, LLC. The commenter was opposed to including any of
its property in the listing, stating: (1) It believed that all prudent
cleanup and reclamation (which it described as including removal of
trash, grading of areas, and construction of berms and a storm water
collection system) of its property had been completed; (2) if EPA
believed additional work was needed, the company would be willing to
voluntarily complete the work; and (3) including the property on the
NPL site would be detrimental to both Kuhles Capital and the area
economy. In support, Kuhles Capital included 26 pictures of cleanup
work. In response, EPA is listing the release as described in the HRS
scoring evaluation for the site. As mentioned just above in response to
the second comment, EPA will refine the boundaries of the site after
further investigation and obtaining additional information. Moreover,
EPA's cleanup work must adhere to the requirements in the NCP. It is
not clear whether the activities described by Kuhles Capital in its
comment letter meet those standards, or whether they are protective of
human health and the environment. Remedy selection, including
evaluation of alternatives, occurs at a later stage of the cleanup
process. EPA also notes that the act of listing does not assign
liability. With respect to the offer to clean up contamination
voluntarily, EPA will take the offer into consideration. EPA will work
with all parties in an effort to ensure the cleanup process will not
negatively impact the community.
    All comments that were received by EPA are contained in the
Headquarters Docket and are also listed in EPA's electronic public
Docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov.

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 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 Final 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 Final 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 rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes 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 rule does not
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing
reasons, I certify that this rule 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 Final 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 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 Final 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 final 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 Final Rule?
    This final 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 final 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 Final Rule?
    This 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 section 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 Final Rule?
    No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General Accounting
Office?
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, that includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA has submitted a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the
federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must
contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the
rule (including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit
analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small
businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing
unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments
and the private sector), and any other relevant information or
requirements and any relevant Executive Orders.
    EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule
will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of
this document, since it is not a major rule. Section 804(2) defines a
major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: An
annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal,
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and
export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained
above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It
establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA
necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any
action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs.
Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site
decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of
listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective
date of major rules after this report is submitted.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
    Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214, 1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

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.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

0
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    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.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                   Table 1--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    State             Site name             City/county       Notes \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
AZ...........   Iron King Mine--         Dewey-Humboldt.    ............
                Humboldt Smelter.

                              * * * * * * *
CO...........  Nelson Tunnel/Commodore   Creede.            ............
                Waste Rock.

                              * * * * * * *
FL...........  Flash Cleaners.........   Pompano Beach.     ............

                              * * * * * * *
NC...........  Aberdeen Contaminated    Aberdeen.           ............
                Ground Water.

                              * * * * * * *
OH...........  East Troy Contaminated   Troy.               ............
                Aquifer.

                              * * * * * * *
TX...........  Old Esco Manufacturing.  Greenville.         ............

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
  Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be >= 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be >= 28.50)
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-20390 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act significantly increases
the amount of renewable fuels required to be sold in the U.S. under
EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This mandated increase in biofuel
consumption could have significant lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
impacts due to global shifts in land use for the production of biofuel
crops due to changes in demand for energy, fertilizer and pesticides.
There is significant data available on domestic energy, fertilizer, and
pesticide used in agriculture. The work described here focuses on
compiling information on international (non-U.S.) agricultural inputs.

This memorandum summarizes the methodology used to estimate GHG emission
factors and changes in GHG emissions related to international
agricultural energy use, fertilizer and pesticide consumption, and rice
cultivation due to potential changes in land use to meet increased
demand for biofuels. Data were obtained and analyzed from various
agricultural and energy datasets. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) methodologies were used to estimate GHG emissions.

Specifically, ICF developed the following:

Fertilizer and Pesticide Consumption Projections

N2O Emissions from Fertilizer Consumption and Crop Residues

GHG Emission Rates for Agricultural Energy Use

CH4 Emission Factors for Rice Cultivation

We provide a detailed explanation of the methodologies and data sources
used below.

Fertilizer and Pesticide Consumption Projections

Fertilizer Consumption Projections

Historical fertilizer application rates (kilograms of fertilizer applied
per hectare) and consumption (tonnes), as well as agricultural area,
were primarily obtained from the Food and Agriculture Organization’s
(FAO) Fertistat Dataset. Fertistat is a publicly available,
international fertilizer dataset containing consumption data by crop and
country. Fertistat data are available for nitrogen (N), phosphorus
(P2O5), and potassium (K2O) fertilizers, and are based on surveyed
observations for a single year or period between planting and
harvesting.  Survey data were collected between 1988 to 2004, with the
year 2000 being the most frequent year of survey data collection.
Application rates are calculated by Fertistat as total fertilizer
consumption per country divided by agricultural area fertilized.
Application rates for the baseline 2022 scenario are assumed to be equal
to rates reported by Fertistat. Tables 1 through 3 in the Appendix
present fertilizer application rates by country and crop.

Fertistat did not report data for several crops of interest for certain
countries, including Russia wheat, China wheat, and India soybean.
Fertilizer application rates for wheat cultivation in Russia and China
were obtained from Harris, 1998. Application rates for soybean
production in India were obtained from the Fertilizer Association of
India.

To determine the difference in fertilizer consumption between an
increased biofuels demand scenario and the 2022 baseline scenario,
application rates by country and crop were multiplied by projected
acreage changes for crop production from the Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) agricultural models. Change in
fertilizer consumption was calculated for 33 individual countries and
for 8 regions (as shown in Table 1) to match the crop production change
data from the FAPRI model results. As FAPRI region definitions were
largely unavailable by crop, FAO regional definitions were used.,

Table   SEQ Table \* ARABIC  1 : Country and Region Definitions

Pesticide Consumption Projections

Pesticide consumption projections are calculated using the same
methodology as fertilizer projections. Historical data were taken from
FAO’s FAOSTAT database for pesticide consumption, including fungicides
and bactericides, herbicides, and insecticides. Data were available by
country, but not by crop. Data refers to the quantity of pesticides used
in or sold to the agricultural sector for crops and seeds. Rates of
pesticide application were determined by dividing FAOSTAT’s pesticide
data by “agricultural area,” a variable found in FAO’s
ResourceStat - Land dataset (see Appendix, Table 4). Agricultural area
is defined as arable land (land under temporary crops), land cultivated
with permanent crops (e.g. coffee), and permanent pastures (land used
for five or more years for herbaceous forage crops). Change in pesticide
consumption by country was calculated by multiplying pesticide
application rates by the change in crop production acreage due to
increased U.S. demand for biofuels.

To ensure that pesticide application rates were representative of a
typical year, an average of pesticide consumption was calculated from
1995 through 2003. If data were not available during this period, data
were averaged from 1990 through 1995.

N2O Emissions from Fertilizer Consumption and Crop Residues

Change in fertilizer consumption and associated nitrous oxide (N2O)
emissions due to increased U.S. biofuel demand are projected based on
crop production acreage for priority crops and countries. GHG emissions
are calculated based on nitrogen (N) inputs from synthetic N fertilizer
consumption and crop residues, both of which cause direct and indirect
N2O emissions from agricultural soils. Emission estimates are based on
the IPCC 2006 default emissions factors and emissions equations for Tier
1 methodology.

Projections of Changes in GHG Emissions from Fertilizer Consumption

Changes in fertilizer consumption cause changes in the amount of N added
to soils, which change the amount of N2O eventually emitted to the
atmosphere.  For this analysis, we estimate changes in N2O emissions due
to changes in synthetic fertilizer consumption and changes in crop
residue application for certain crops.  As Fertistat reports only
mineral (or synthetic) fertilizer consumption data, we did not estimate
changes in GHG emissions from organic fertilizer consumption. Emissions
from organic fertilizer were handled separately by EPA through analysis
of manure management changes from livestock operations.  Calculations
are based on Tier 1 methodologies for managed soils from the IPCC 2006
Guidelines. Tier 1 methodologies do not consider different land cover,
soil type, climatic conditions, or management practices, and also do not
consider any lag time for direct emissions from crop residues.

The pathways of N in the soil are complex, but can be summarized as
follows: N2O emissions from soils occur either directly or indirectly.
Direct emissions occur when N is applied to soil (from fertilizer, crop
residues, or other sources), and eventually N2O is emitted through the
processes of nitrification and denitrification.  Indirect emissions
occur in two ways: (1) N applied to soils can be volatilized in a non-
N2O form, and redeposited in another location, where N2O emissions will
occur and (2) applied N can be leached by water in a non- N2O form, and
the N transported in the runoff will emit N2O in a different location
from that where the N was applied. This analysis looks at direct and
indirect emissions from synthetic N fertilizer application and crop
residues. GHG emissions from fertilizer consumption are determined based
on the annual amount of synthetic fertilizer applied. Crop residue
emissions are based on the N content of above- and below-ground crop
residues (including N-fixing crops) that are returned to soils. Indirect
crop residue emissions only include leaching/runoff emissions, as crop
residue N is not thought to volatilize. In summary, GHG emission
pathways include:

Direct emissions from N additions to soils from synthetic fertilizers

Indirect emissions from N additions to soils from synthetic fertilizers
from volatilization and leaching/runoff.

Direct emissions from N in crop residues

Indirect emissions from N in crop residues due to leaching and runoff.

Emissions were estimated using IPCC default emission factors and default
crop residue parameters (see Appendix, Tables 5 and 6). Emissions were
calculated using the following Tier 1 equations:

Direct Emissions:

Direct N2O emissions from synthetic fertilizers:

Emissions  = FSN  × EF1 × 44/28

Where:

FSN = the annual amount of synthetic fertilizer N applied to soils (kg
N)

EF1 = emission factor,(equal to 0.1 kg N2O-N/kg N input)

44/28 = conversion of N2O -N to N2O

Direct N2O emissions from crop residues:

Emissions = FCR × EF1 × 44/28

Where

FCR = the annual amount of N in crop residues and forage/pasture
renewal, kg N2O-N.

EF1 = emission factor,(equal to 0.1 kg N2O-N/kg N input)

44/28 = conversion of N2O -N to N2O

= ∑ (Yield FreshT × DRYT × ST + IT) × AreaT × (Nag(T) + Rbg(T) ×
Nbg(T))

Where:

T = crop or forage type

	Yield Fresh = fresh weight yield of crop (kg fresh weight/ha)

	DRY = dry matter fraction of harvested crop (kg dry matter/kg fresh
weight)

	S = Slope for above-ground residue dry matter

	I = Intercept for above-ground residue dry matter

	Area = total annual area harvested (ha)

	Nag = N content of above-ground residues (kg N/kg dry matter)

Rbg = ratio of below-ground residues to harvested yield

Nbg = N content of below-ground residues (kg N/kg dry matter)

Table 6 in the Appendix presents crop residue factors by crop type. If
default factors were not available for a particular crop, then proxies
were used based on “major crop type” categories. Rice and sorghum
estimates are based on default factors for grains; and peanut and
sugarbeet estimates are based on root crops default factors. IPCC
default factors were not available for cotton, palm oil, rapeseed,
sugarcane and sunflower. As a result, direct and indirect emissions from
crop residues for these crops are not included in total N2O emissions
estimates.

To determine the fresh weight yield for priority crops and countries,
the change in crop production provided from the FAPRI model results in
the year 2022 was divided by the change in crop production acreage. Area
in the FCR equation refers to the change in crop production acreage.
Changes in crop acreage were obtained from the FAPRI model forecasts for
key crops, countries, and regions.

Indirect emissions:

The two pathways for indirect emissions from managed soils are: (1)
volatilization of N as NH3 and oxides of N (NOx), and the deposition of
these gases and their products NH4 and NO3 onto soils and the surface of
lakes and other waters; and (2) the leaching and runoff from land of N
from synthetic fertilizer and crop residues. Leaching and runoff refers
to the inorganic N in or on soils which bypasses biological retention
mechanisms by transport in runoff, or overland water flow, and through
flow through soil macropores or pipe drains.

Indirect emissions from synthetic fertilizer consumption:

Emissions = [(FSN × FracGASF × EF2) + (FSN × Fracleach × EF3)] ×
44/28

Where:

FSN = annual amount of synthetic fertilizer N applied to soils (kg N)

FracGASF = fraction of synthetic fertilizer N that volatilizes as NH3
and NOx (equal to 0.10 kg N

	volatilized/kg N applied)

EF2 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N volatilization (equal to
0.01 kg N2O-N/(kg NH3-N + NOx-N volatilized))

Fracleach = N lost from leaching and runoff (equal to 0.30 kg N/kg N
applied)

EF3 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff
(equal to 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N leached or runoff)

44/28 = conversion of N2O -N to N2O

4. Indirect emissions from crop residues:

Emissions = FCR × Fracleach × EF3 × 44/28

Where:

Fracleach = N lost from leaching and runoff (equal to 0.30 kg N/kg N
applied)

EF3 = emission factor for N2O emissions from N leaching and runoff
(equal to 0.0075 kg N2O-N/kg N leached or runoff)

44/28 = conversion of N2O -N to N2O

Total Emissions

To derive total N2O emissions from changes in fertilizer consumption due
to changes in crop acreage, emissions were summed across these four
pathways.

GHG Emission Rates for Agricultural Energy Use

We estimated GHG emissions per area of agricultural land by country, due
to agricultural energy inputs in the form of direct emissions from fuel
consumption and indirect emissions from electricity and heat.

Total CO2 emissions from fuel combustion in the
agriculture/forestry/fishing sector of each country for 2005 and 2006
were taken from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) CO2 Emissions
from Fuel Combustion 2007. As these estimates also include forestry and
fishing activities, using these estimates for agriculture results in an
overestimate of emissions. However, we believe this overestimate to be
small, as agriculture is by far the largest consumer of energy use of
these sectors.  Furthermore, emissions were determined per acre of
cropland, no distinction was made between different types of crops.
Emissions from the use of the following fuel types are minimal and were
therefore not included in each country’s total CO2 emissions: Biogas,
Charcoal, Gas Works Gas, Geothermal, Other liquid biofuels, Primary
Solid Biomass, Solar thermal.

To estimate indirect emissions from the generation of electricity and
heat, 2005/2006 data on electricity and heat consumption in the
agriculture/forestry/fishing sector were obtained from IEA’s Energy
Statistics of Non-OECD Countries, 2008 and Energy Statistics of OECD
Countries, 2008. ,   CO2 emissions were estimated by multiplying
consumption by the average rate of CO2 produced per kWh of electricity
or heat generated (provided by IEA’s CO2 Emissions from Fuel
Combustion, 2007).

Lifecycle GHG emission factors were applied to all calculated emissions
to estimate GHG emissions from fuel exploration, production,
transportation, and distribution (see Appendix, Table 7).  To estimate
CO2 emissions per agricultural area, emissions estimates were divided by
total agricultural area for each country (see Appendix, Table 8).

CH4 Emission Factors for Rice Cultivation

For this analysis, we developed country- and region specific emission
factors for rice cultivation. We also provided rice growing season
lengths.

Calculating emissions from rice cultivation, per the IPCC 2006
guidelines, requires the following data: area of rice harvested, an
emissions factor, and planting to harvesting season length.  Changes in
area of rice harvested were provided from the FAPRI model results.
Emissions from rice cultivation can be affected by a number of factors,
namely water regimes during the cultivation period, water regimes before
the cultivation period, and organic amendments.  If country-specific
data are available on these, the data can be used to scale the IPCC
default emission factor.

For countries in this analysis, country-specific data on organic
amendments and the water regime before the cultivation period were not
available. Data were available, however, for the water regimes used
during the cultivation period. Therefore, the default IPCC emission
factor was scaled for each cropping regime: irrigated, rainfed lowland,
upland and deepwater. Default factors are presented in the Appendix,
Table 9. Rice cultivation season lengths were available from the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) for priority countries.

To be able to apply the cropping practice-specific emission factor, the
area harvested under each cropping regime must be known. Data were
collected from IRRI regarding the cropping practices in the major rice
growing countries of the world. Data covers the percentage of area
cultivated under each cropping regime (irrigated, rainfed lowland,
upland and deepwater) in each country (see Appendix, Table 10). To
calculate emissions from rice cultivation, the IRRI cropping regime
percentages for each country can be applied to area harvested to
determine the area grown under each regime in the country. Then, using
the season length for the country and the scaled emission factors for
each cropping regime, emissions can be calculated for each cropping
regime, and then summed to produce the total emission estimate for each
country. These country totals were multiplied by the changes in rice
production acres from the FAPRI model results to determine overall rice
methane emission changes.

 Food and Agricultural Organization. Fertistat Database.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/fertistat/"
http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/fertistat/ . Last accessed October 10, 2008.

 Personal correspondence. Wolfgang Prante, Information Management
Officer. Food and Agriculture Organization. July 15th, 2008.

 For several countries, Fertistat reported two or three years of data
collection to represent growing periods for crops or yearly averages for
a range of years. Data does not refer to fertilizer consumption over a
two or three year timespan. For crop data with two years mentioned, the
data refer to the period between planting and harvesting, and the latter
year is used in the analysis. For crop data with three years mentioned,
values reported are yearly averages, and the middle year was used in the
analysis.

 Where the percentage of total agricultural area fertilized is not
available, application rates are calculated by Fertistat as consumption
divided by agricultural area planted (i.e. this assumes all area is
fertilized). Personal correspondence. Jan Poulisse, Senior Manager. Food
and Agriculture Organization.

 Harris, Gene. 1998. An Analysis of Global Fertilizer Application Rates
for Major Crops. Agro-Economics Committee. Fertilizer Demand Meeting.
Toronto, Canada.

 Fertilizer Association of India. “Usage of Fertilisers by Various
Crops: 1996-97.”

 Region definitions: Switzerland and Norway are included in the “Rest
of World” category for land use change. Sudan is included in “Other
Middle East.” “Russia and Ukraine” category applies only to
Russia. The United States is excluded from the dataset.

 FAPRI regions vary by crop type, so “Other” categories (e.g. Other
Latin America”) could potentially differ in the countries they
include.

 FAO. FAOSTAT: Pesticide Consumption.   HYPERLINK
"http://faostat.fao.org/site/424/default.aspx#ancor"
http://faostat.fao.org/site/424/default.aspx#ancor . Last accessed:
October 9, 2008.

 FAO. ResourceStat-Land.   HYPERLINK
"http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor"
http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor . Last accessed:
October 15, 2008.

 FAO. FAOSTAT: Glossary.   HYPERLINK
"http://faostat.fao.org/site/379/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=379"
http://faostat.fao.org/site/379/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=379 . Last
accessed: October 10, 2008.

 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry,
and Other Land Use.

 IPCC. op. cit., pg. 11.6

 IPCC, op. cit., pg. 11.19

 International Energy Agency. 2007. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion:
1971-2005. IEA Statistics. IEA reports 2006 data for OECD countries and
2005 data for OECD countries.

 International Energy Agency. 2008. Energy Statistics of Non-OECD
Countries. IEA Statistics.

 International Energy Agency. 2008. Energy Statistics of OECD Countries.
IEA Statistics.

 Factors provided by Vincent Camobreco, EPA, based on “Greenhouse
Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation” (GREET)
model results for different fuels and scaling combustion vs. upstream
GHG emissions.

 FAO: ResourceStat-Land. Dec. 2007.   HYPERLINK
"http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor"
http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/default.aspx#ancor . Last accessed:
October 17, 2008.

e

f

A

B

m

ž

Ú

d

g

k

u

…

‘

™

¡

¢

ß

í

ú

@

2@

m

|

ž

Ÿ

Ç

Ì

Í

Ñ

Ò

Ù

Ú

 h*

 h*

h

h

h

h*

 hœ

. Last accessed: October 15, 2008.

 PAGE

  PAGE  \* Arabic  7