[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19037-19039]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06815]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0009; FRL-9908-79-Region 10]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Harbor Oil Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Harbor Oil Superfund Site (Site) located
in Portland, Oregon, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and
requests public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated
pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA and the State of Oregon, through the
Department of Environmental Quality, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been completed. This
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund or under
state law.

DATES: Comments must be received by May 7, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2003-0009, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments.
     Email: By sending an email to EPA Project Manager
Christopher Cora at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Christopher Cora, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA 98101-3140.
     Hand delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, MS ECL-115, Seattle WA 98101-3140.
    Such deliveries are accepted only during the Docket's normal hours
of operation. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2003-0009. 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 email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
captured automatically 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 should be
free of any defects or viruses.

Docket

    All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:

EPA Superfund Records Center, 1200 6th Ave, 7th floor, Seattle, WA
98101-3140.
Historic Kenton Firehouse, 8105 North Brandon St, Portland, OR 97217,
503-823-0215.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Cora, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Suite 900,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-3140,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Harbor Oil
Superfund Site from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B
of 40 CFR part 300, which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to
section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA maintains the NPL
as the list of sites that appear to present a significant risk to
public health, welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the
subject of remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Fund). As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP,
sites deleted from the NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions if future conditions warrant such actions.
    EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for
thirty (30)

days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that EPA is using
for this action. Section IV discusses the Harbor Oil Superfund Site and
demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, 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 Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
    (1) EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice of
Intent to Delete.
    (2) EPA has provided the state 30 working days for review of this
notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
    (4) The State of Oregon, through the Department of Environmental
Quality, has concurred with deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Oregonian. The newspaper notice announces the 30-
day public comment period concerning the Notice of Intent to Delete the
site from the NPL.
    (6) EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed deletion
in the deletion docket and made these items available for public
inspection and copying at the Site information repositories identified
above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this Notice of Intent to Delete, EPA will evaluate and respond
appropriately to the comments before making a final decision. If
necessary, EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any
significant public comments received. After the public comment period,
if EPA determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the
Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the
Federal Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the
Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will be made available to
interested parties and in the site information repositories listed
above.
    Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Site Deletion

    The following information provides EPA's rationale for deleting the
Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Harbor Oil Superfund Site (CERCLIS ID No.: ORD071803985) is a
4.2-acre used oil reprocessing facility located at 11535 North Force
Avenue in northeast Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. American
Petroleum Environmental Services is the current operator. The facility
began cleaning tanker trucks and recycling oil in the 1950s to 1960s. A
fire destroyed the facility in 1979, which released pollutants into the
wetlands and Force Lake. The presence of pollutants released into the
environment can be associated with cattle truck and tanker truck
cleaning operations, road oiling for dust suppression, oil treatment
and processing activities, the 1979 facility fire, pesticide usage at
historical stockyards and in the city of Vanport, and storm water
drainage patterns. The contaminants include petroleum products,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), metals, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and possibly other contaminants, such as solvents and/or
pesticides such as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) and metals at
the Site. The Site was proposed to the NPL on September 5, 2002 (67 FR
56794). The Site was listed on the NPL on September 29, 2003 (68 FR
55875).

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The RI included sampling soil (213 samples), groundwater (34
samples), sediments (17 samples) and surface water (3 samples) for the
following chemicalgroups: Total petroleum hydrocarbons, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons, volatileorganic compounds, semi-volatile organic
compounds, metals, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls. The RI
sampling indicated site contamination was not significant. The maximum
DDT concentration was 78 mg/Kg in soils and 0.210 mg/Kg in sediments.
The maximum PCB concentration was 32 mg/Kg in soils and 0.131 mg/Kg in
sediments. The maximum soil concentrations were all on the facility
property and are covered by asphalt; therefore there is no completed
exposure pathway. Petroleum contamination was ubiquitous throughout the
site but did not pose unacceptable risk and was highly weathered and
not mobile; for example, it was not in groundwater or surfacewater
above screening levels. Petroleum screening levels are represented by
the lowest available screening levels from EPA or Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. Metals, specifically chrome, copper, and zinc,
exceeded ecological screening values but were limited in areal extent
and posed only slightly elevated risks to terrestrial invertebrates.
VOCs and SVOCs were rarely detected. Benzene (concentration of 0.140
mg/L) and trichloroethylene (concentration of 0.0061 mg/L in 2000) were
detected above drinking water maximum contaminant levels once each in
different groundwater wells. Based on the observation of terrestrial
invertebrates (earthworms) at sampling locations with elevated metals,
it was concluded the impacts were not significant, probably because the
areal extent of contamination was small and the elevated Hazard Indices
were due to the use of conservative reference values. The tables in the
appendix reflect the findings of the baseline human health and
ecological risk assessments (Tables 1 and 2). In summary, the results
of the risk assessment concluded that there are no unacceptable risks
posed by releases from the site. Unacceptable risks were those that
result in risks exceeding EPA's target risk threshold of 1E-4 for
cancer risk or an HI greater than 1 for human health. Ecological risks
were determined to be acceptable, having no impacts on the ecological
community of

the Site. There are no endangered species present at the Site. A FS was
not prepared because the risks were acceptable.

Selected Remedy

    A No Action remedy was selected for the site because the Human
Health Baseline Risk Assessment and the Baseline Ecological Risk
Assessment showed that releases from the Site posed risks within EPA's
acceptable risk range. No response actions were necessary to mitigate
releases from the Site.

Cleanup Goals

    Since there was no unacceptable risk and a response action was not
necessary, cleanup objectives were not established.

Operation and Maintenance--if Applicable

    Because no response actions were taken, there are no operation or
maintenance obligations at the Site.

Five-Year Review--if Applicable

    Five Year Reviews are not applicable because no response actions
were taken.

Community Involvement

    A Technical Assistance Grant was provided to the Harbor Oil
Community Action Group (HOGAG). Meetings of the HOCAG took place on a
monthly basis during the RI and were reduced when site activities
slowed down. Approximately 10 citizens made up the HOCAG, but they
distributed information throughout the North Portland neighborhood
where the site is located. EPA provided a 30-day public review and
comment period on the proposed No Action remedy on November 14, 2012.
EPA held a public meeting on December 6, 2012 to present the proposed
remedy of No Action and receive public comments. EPA responded to all
comments in the responsiveness summary for the Record of Decision, with
no change to the proposed remedy.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP

    The remedial investigation has shown that the releases pose no
significant threat to public health or the environment and therefore no
further Superfund response is needed to protect human health or the
environment at the Site.
    The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from
the NPL when no further response action is appropriate. EPA, in
consultation with the State of Oregon, has determined that all response
actions required by CERCLA have been implemented, and no further CERCLA
response action by EPA or the responsible parties is appropriate.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

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

    Dated: March 10, 2014.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-06815 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


7809 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules ( 3) Secondary service connection is established for ischemic heart disease or other cardiovascular disease under § 3.310( b). ( c) For claims for secondary service connection received by VA after June 9, 1998, a disability that is proximately due to or the result of an injury or disease previously service connected on the basis that it is attributable to the veteran's use of tobacco products during service will not be service connected under § 3.310( a). ( Authority: 38 U. S. C. 501( a), 1103, 1103 note)

§ 3.310 [ Amended] 3. In § 3.310, paragraph ( a) is amended by removing `` Disability'' and adding, in its place, `` Except as provided in § 3.300( c), disability''.

[ FR Doc. 00   3662 Filed 2   15   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 268 [ FRL   6538   2]

RIN 2050   AE76 Deferral of Phase IV Standards for PCB's as an Underlying Hazardous Constituent in Soil AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to temporarily defer a portion of the rule applying Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) to underlying hazardous constituents ( UHC) in soils contaminated with certain characteristic hazardous wastes. EPA promulgated this rule on May 26, 1998. Specifically, EPA is proposing to temporarily defer the requirement that polychlorinated biphenyls ( PCBs) be considered a UHC when they are present in soils that exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic for metals. EPA is proposing this action because the regulation appears to be discouraging generators from cleaning up contaminated soils, which is contrary to what EPA intended when we promulgated alternative treatment standards for contaminated soils. In addition, EPA needs more time to restudy the issue of appropriate treatment standards for metalcontaminated soils which also contain PCBs as UHC. If this proposal is finalized, the Agency would still require generators to treat these soils to meet LDR standards for all hazardous constituents except PCBs. Generators would also be required to treat PCBs if the total concentration of halogenated organic compounds in the soil equals or exceeds 1000 parts per million. DATES: Submit comments on or before April 3, 2000. ADDRESSES: Address written comments on this proposed rule to the docket clerk at the following address: RCRA Information Center ( RIC), Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Docket Identification Number is F   2000   PCBP   FFFFF. The RIC is open from 9: 00 a. m. to 4: 00 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. To review docket materials, the Agency recommends that the public make an appointment by calling ( 703) 603   9230. The public may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $ 0.15/ page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the Supplementary Information section for information on accessing them. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the RCRA Hotline at ( 800) 424   9346 or TDD ( 800) 553   7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, D. C. metropolitan area, call ( 703) 412   9810 or TDD ( 703) 412   3323. For more detailed information on specific aspects of this rulemaking, contact Ernesto Brown, Office of Solid Waste, Mail Code 5303W, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, D. C. 20460   0002, ( 703) 308   8608, brown. ernie@ epa. gov SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You can find the index and the following supporting materials on the Internet at: http:// www. epa. gov/ epaoswer/ hazwaste/ ldr/ index. htm Preamble Outline:

I. Authority II. Purpose III. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on this Rule? IV. Background A. Land Disposal Restrictions Program B. Soils Subject to LDR Requirements C. Alternative Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soils D. Underlying Hazardous Constituents V. Need to Defer the Phase IV Rule A. Why Has Remediation Stopped? B. Why is EPA Considering Temporary Deferral? C. What is the Effect of the Deferral? VI. State Authorization VII. Regulatory Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act D. Paperwork Reduction Act E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks F. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism I. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments I. Authority EPA is proposing these regulations under the authority of sections 1006( B), 2002, and 3004 of RCRA, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6012( a), 6921, and 6924.

II. Purpose EPA is proposing this action because the existing regulation appears to discourage remediation of certain contaminated soils, contrary to EPA's intent in promulgating alternative treatment standards for contaminated soils. In addition, EPA needs more time to review the issue of appropriate treatment standards for metalcontaminated soils that also contain PCBs as UHC.

III. How Can I Influence EPA's Thinking on this Rule?

In developing this proposal, we tried to address the concerns of all our stakeholders. Your comments will help us improve this rule. We invite you to provide different views on options we propose, new approaches we haven't considered, new data, how this rule may affect you, or other relevant information. We welcome your views on all aspects of this proposed rule. Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below: · Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel that way. · Provide solid technical and cost data to support your views. · If you estimate potential costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate. · Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you disagree with. · Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. · Offer specific alternatives. · Refer your comments to specific sections of the proposal, such as the units or page numbers of the preamble, or the regulatory sections. · Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. · Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your comments.

VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 12: 42 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1 7810 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 1 Technically, the soils which are subject to LDRs, are a) soil which contains a listed hazardous waste, and b) soil which exhibits ( or, in some cases, exhibited) a characteristic of hazardous waste. See discussion at 63 FR 28617   28619. This notice applies to subsets of each of these types of contaminated soils, as explained later in this notice. This notice also uses the term `` contaminated soils'' to refer to soils which may potentially be subject to LDRs. 2 The requirement already applied, however, to soils exhibiting the ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or organic toxicity characteristics. IV. Background A. Land Disposal Restrictions Program The LDR program requires that generators of hazardous wastes pretreat the wastes before they can be disposed of on land. The treatment must substantially reduce the toxicity or mobility of the hazardous waste to minimize short and long term threats to human health and the environment posed by the waste's disposal. EPA typically accomplishes this objective by requiring that hazardous constituents in the wastes be treated to, or be present at levels no greater than levels that can be achieved using the Best Demonstrated Available Technology for the waste.

B. Soils Subject to LDR Requirements The rule subjects soils contaminated with hazardous wastes to LDR requirements when a generator excavates soils from an area of contamination and disposes of it in a land disposal unit. ( See RCRA sections 3004( d)( 3) and ( e)( 3); 63 FR 28602) 1. Before the Agency promulgated LDR Phase IV standards, the Agency subjected contaminated soil to the same land disposal restriction treatment standards that apply to industrial process waste. EPA, however, has promulgated different treatment standards for contaminated soils than for process wastes. The Agency did so because: Soils are physically different from process wastes, so that the same treatment standards may not be technically appropriate. See 63 FR 28603. When generators apply treatment standards for process wastes to contaminated soils, environmentally counterproductive results can ensue, because generators often choose not to undertake remediation such as the exhumation and treatment of contaminated soils, even though the Agency feels is the most permanent approach. See 63 FR 28603   28604. This is because EPA cannot always compel generators of contaminated soil to exhume, treat and redispose the soils. The relevant statutes and rules often allow generators to remediate soils by leaving contaminated soil in place and providing controls on possible human exposure to those soils, ( for example, capping) which can be much less expensive than requiring that generators excavate and treat the soil. See 63 FR 28603   28604; see also Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA, 172 F. 3d 65, 67, 70 ( D. C. Cir. 1999) which upheld EPA's authority to develop more lenient treatment standards for contaminated soils and other remediation wastes in order to encourage remediation involving exhumation and treatment of these wastes, since `` the agency's authority to compel high quality disposition of such waste is not as great as it is for as yet undisposed waste.''

C. Alternative Treatment Standards for Contaminated Soils Generators have the option of complying either with the existing treatment standards for industrial process waste or with the new soil treatment standards. The purpose for these new standards is to encourage generators to remediate and treat contaminated soil, and in particular, to avoid discouraging such remediation when soil is contaminated with organic hazardous constituents. See 63 FR 28603. For soils contaminated with organic hazardous constituents, this choice posed special potential to discourage aggressive remediation because the Agency treatment standards for organic hazardous constituents in process wastes are based on performance of combustion technology. Generators often cannot achieve these standards except by combusting the wastes   a very expensive remedy for soils, and not always technically appropriate. See 63 FR 28603   28604. In recognition of this limitation, EPA established the special soil treatment standards for organics at levels that generators may achieve by technologies other than combustion; that is, EPA established the standards based on the performance of non combustion technologies. See 63 FR 28614   28617.

D. Underlying Hazardous Constituents Importantly for the present proposal, the existing standards further require that generators treat all UHC in contaminated soils. See 63 FR 28608   28609; 40 CFR 268.49( d). A `` UHC,'' for this purpose, is any hazardous constituent that might be present in the soil at levels exceeding 10 times the Universal Treatment Standard for that constituent. See 40 CFR 268.49( d). In the Phase IV rule, EPA imposed this requirement for the first time on soils exhibiting the Toxicity Characteristic ( TC) for metals, and on soils containing listed hazardous wastes. 2 PCBs can be an example of UHC in contaminated soils, including metalcontaining soils. Where this occurs, the Phase IV rule establishes an alternative treatment standard of 100 ppm total PCBs in soil ( 10 times the Universal Treatment Standard) or 90 percent reduction of total PCB concentrations in the soil, whichever is higher. See 40 CFR 268.49( c). The other option available to generators is to treat soils to the standards applicable to process wastes, although in that instance as well, soils that exhibit a hazardous characteristic must achieve treatment standards for UHCs before they are disposed on land. 40 CFR 268.40( e). EPA found that generators can achieve these standards without applying combustion technology, see 63 FR 28616 Table 4, although treatment often requires that heat be applied to the waste, as occurs with thermal desorption technology. The statutory provisions potentially address PCBs in soils in other way. The so called California list provision, RCRA section 3004( d)( 2)( E), provides that hazardous wastes that contain halogenated organic compounds at concentrations equal to or exceeding 1000 ppm cannot be land disposed. Congress specified this level ( and the other California list levels) as a starting point in the land disposal prohibition process, prohibiting land disposal of wastes that pose the most obvious hazards. See 51 FR 44718 ( Dec. 11, 1986). PCBs are a type of halogenated organic compound. Consequently, in the absence of the Phase IV PCB standards, the 1000 ppm level would be the upper bound of PCBs that can be in contaminated soil without triggering LDR treatment requirements ( i. e., contaminated soils could not be land disposed equal to or greater than 1000 ppm).

V. Need to Defer the Phase IV Rule A. Why Has Remediation Stopped? Unfortunately, initial indications are that the requirement that PCBs be treated as a UHC in soils exhibiting the TC for metals is having an effect opposite to what EPA intended. Cleanups of sites with metal characteristic soils where PCBs are now a UHC and where the remedy was to involve soil exhumation, treatment and redisposal have stopped, or been seriously delayed. See Letter from Phillip Comella Esq. to Steven VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 16: 41 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1 7811 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules Silverman, EPA Office of General Counsel, April 21, 1999 detailing experiences of private entities, including waste generators, treaters and disposers; Memorandum to Administrative Record, November 2, 1999 ( detailing experiences of EPA site managers). As set out in more detail in these communications, the reason is that as a practical matter a choice is now being presented between combustion and leaving soils in place. Some of the reasons attributed for this are: · limited effective non combustion treatment presently available for PCBs, and what there is involves mobile units which face potential permitting delays at non Superfund sites. · lack of State authorization to implement the amended soil standards, thus retaining PCBs as a UHC, without the option of treating to 10 times the Universal Treatment Standards or 90 percent reduction from initial concentration. Commenters further note that at least some of these situations could be eligible for a treatment variance under 40 CFR 268.44. Such situations can occur when the standard is demonstrably not achievable using noncombustion technology, or when treatment to LDR levels would discourage aggressive remediation. See LEAN v. EPA, 172 F. 3d at 70 ( upholding EPA authority to issue treatment variances for remediation wastes where existing treatment standard discourages aggressive remediation). But there are undesirable delays attendant in the variance process, and EPA in any case believes that if a problem with a rule is widespread, it is appropriate to amend the rule rather than issuing variances piecemeal. EPA does not necessarily agree with all of these comments, but does believe that remediations involving soils contaminated with both PCBs and metals are being delayed or stopped. This has taken place after promulgation of the new Phase IV requirements respecting these soils, and it appears that at least some of the reasons for these delays are legitimate. Thus, this aspect of the Phase IV rule appears to be having an environmentally counterproductive effect of delaying cleanups and discouraging aggressive remediation.

B. Why is EPA Considering Temporary Deferral? EPA believes it is appropriate to temporarily defer the requirement that PCBs be treated as an underlying hazardous constituent in TC soils under RCRA 1006( b) in order to investigate how best to integrate the RCRA LDR requirements for PCBs with the cleanup programs under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ( CERCLA) and RCRA ( both the specific `` corrective action'' requirements of RCRA 3004 ( u) and ( v) and 3008( h), and the cleanup requirements applying to RCRA regulated units, e. g., during closure). An additional reason EPA is considering a temporary deferral is to investigate further the relationship of the RCRA rules with those for PCB remediation wastes EPA issued under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) not long after EPA promulgated the Phase IV rule. See 63 FR 35384 ( June 29, 1998). TSCA allows `` bulk PCB remediation wastes'' including soils containing 50 ppm PCBs or greater to be disposed without treatment in a TSCA disposal facility or an RCRA subtitle C landfill. See 40 CFR 761.61( b)( 2)( i). These TSCA standards, which allow disposal without treatment of soils containing any concentrations of PCBs greater or equal to 50 ppm, were not established to represent levels at which threats posed by land disposal of PCB containing soils are minimized. Furthermore, those rules require persons disposing of PCBs to comply with all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations. These regulations consequently cannot be read as preempting RCRA requirements. Nonetheless, the TSCA rule serves a similar purpose as the RCRA Phase IV rule   an attempt to encourage aggressive remediation of contaminated soil ( see 63 FR 35386) and reflects the Agency's judgment that land disposal of these soils is reasonably protective. Certainly as an interim measure EPA believes it appropriate to seek to coordinate better the two sets of rules, and thus to defer the Phase IV rule while we further evaluate the workings and actual effect of the two sets of rules.

C. What is the Effect of the Deferral? Should EPA adopt a temporary deferral, the statutory California list provision mentioned above ( RCRA section 3004( d)( 2) ( E)) would create an upper bound on the concentration of PCBs in soil that could be disposed without treatment. As explained earlier, that upper bound would be 1,000 ppm, the statutory limit for halogenated organic compounds. This means that a temporary deferral would only affect a relatively narrow class of wastes: soils exhibiting the TC for metals and containing PCBs in concentration between 100 ppm and 1000 ppm. RCRA allows temporary deferral of the Phase IV requirement. As in the temporary deferral of RCRA requirements to accommodate a potentially overlapping regulatory regime for underground storage tanks at issue in Edison Electric Inst. v. EPA, 2 F. 3d 438 ( D. C. Cir. 1993), EPA here needs to investigate further the relationship of different sets of rules addressing PCB contaminated soil disposal. These soils will be managed protectively during a deferral period, either in RCRA subtitle C or TSCAapproved landfills, and there is a reasonable upper bound on the concentration of PCBs that could be disposed of without treatment. See 2F. 3d at 452   53 citing these factors as a reasonable justification for a comparable temporary deferral. Moreover, EPA may permissibly alter land disposal restriction treatment standards for remediation wastes in order to encourage aggressive remediations. See LEAN, 172 F. 3d at 69   70. A final note: The Agency is not contemplating any type of deferral for other organic hazardous constituents in TC metal soils. Nor is EPA accepting comments on the requirement to treat PCBs present as underlying hazardous constituents in soil exhibiting the TC due to organics. This requirement has been in place without significant issue since 1994 and so is unrelated to the Phase IV rule. The scope of today's document thus is exclusive to soils exhibiting the TC for metals containing PCBs as an underlying hazardous constituent. The requirement to treat PCBs as a UHC also can apply to soils containing a listed hazardous waste, where the generator elects to comply with the alternative soil standard of 10 times Universal Treatment Standard or 90 percent reduction of initial concentrations. See 40 CFR 268. 49( d). Although the comments EPA has received to this point have dealt exclusively with situations involving soils exhibiting the TC for metals, EPA also solicits comment on whether PCBs should continue to be considered a potential UHC for listed wastes being treated to comply with the alternative soil standards. It should be noted, however, that a generator would have the option of treating the soil to the standards for process wastes, see 40 CFR 268.49( b), in which case there is no requirement to treat UHCs. Thus, generators would not appear to be facing the same quandary as they do with TC soils with PCBs as a UHC.

VI. State Authorization Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA may authorize qualified States to VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 12: 42 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1 7812 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules administer and enforce the RCRA hazardous waste program within the State. Following authorization, we maintain independent enforcement authority under sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003 of RCRA, although authorized States have enforcement responsibility. A State would become authorized for today's proposed PCB treatment standard for contaminated soil by following the approval process described under 40 CFR 271.21. See 40 CFR part 271 for the overall standards and requirements for authorization. Like all land disposal restriction treatment standards, today's changes are proposed under the authority of 3004( g) and ( m) of RCRA. These statutory provisions were enacted as part of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) of 1984. Under section 3006( g) of RCRA, new requirements promulgated under the authority of statutory provisions added by HSWA go into effect in authorized States at the same time as they do in unauthorized States   as long as the new requirements are more stringent than the requirements a State is currently authorized to implement. However, none of the provisions in today's proposed rule are more stringent than the existing Federal requirements. Authorized States are not required to modify their programs when we promulgate changes to Federal requirements that are less stringent than existing Federal requirements. This is because RCRA section 3009 allows the States to impose ( or retain) standards that are more stringent than those in the Federal program. ( See also 40 CFR 271.1( i)). Therefore, States that are authorized for the LDR program would not be required to adopt today's proposed changes, and these changes would not go into effect until the State revised its LDR program accordingly. However, if EPA finalizes the proposed temporary deferral, we would encourage States to allow compliance with today's proposed PCB treatment standard for contaminated soil if they have the ability under State law to waive existing land disposal restriction treatment standards, or if they have adopted them but are not yet authorized. Again, if a State were not currently authorized for the LDR program, we would implement this proposed treatment standard in that State.

VII. Regulatory Assessments A. Executive Order 12866 Under Executive Order 12866, ( 58 FR 51735 ( October 4, 1993)) the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is `` significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. `` It has been determined that this rule is not a `` significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB review.''

Economic Assessment We estimated the costs of today's final rule to determine if it is a significant regulation as defined by the Executive Order. The analysis considered compliance cost savings from the deferral and resulted in cost savings. A detailed discussion of the methodology used for estimating the costs, economic impacts and the benefits attributable to today's final rule, followed by a presentation of the cost, economic impact and benefit results were prepared and documented in the following report: `` Economic Assessment of the Deferral of Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) as an Underlying Hazardous Constituent in Contaminated Soils.'' This report can be found in its entirety in the docket for today's proposed rule. A summary of the report is provided below.

Methodology To estimate the cost savings associated with today's proposed deferral of UHC requirements for PCBcontaining hazardous soils, the Agency estimated the difference between the costs that would have been incurred in the absence of the deferral and the costs estimated under the post regulatory environment with the deferral. The cost savings are reported in a range of savings based upon two baseline scenarios: one baseline scenario compels incineration or other thermal treatment for TC metal PCB containing hazardous waste soils followed by immobilization of the residue; a second baseline scenario is based upon a number of compliance alternatives, including ( 1) thermal treatment ( e. g., incineration/ thermal desorption, other); ( 2) nonthermal treatment ( e. g., solvent extraction/ soil washing, chemical dechlorination, ex situ bioremediation, immobilization); ( 3) source controls ( e. g., capping); ( 4) no site remediation; and, ( 5) treatability variances. The second baseline scenario models soil washing, chemical dechlorination and immobilization of the soil for half of the affected soils. The other half of the soils are modeled to be treated through thermal treatment. This baseline scenario will result in lower cost savings because the range of remedies is largely less expensive than thermal treatment.

Volume Results The procedure for estimating the volumes of PCB containing hazardous wastes affected by today's proposed rule is detailed in the background document `` Economic Assessment of the Deferral of Phase IV Land Disposal Restriction Treatment Standards for Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( PCBs) as an Underlying Hazardous Constituent in Contaminated Soils,'' which was placed in the docket for today's proposed rule. The Agency has assumed that 60 percent of all TC metal soils with organic UHCs ( 104,730 tons) contain PCBs.

Estimated Cost Savings The extent of the cost savings from the proposed deferral of LDR treatment standards for TC metal PCB containing hazardous waste soils depends on the decision whether to remediate the site, the decision to switch to in situ cleanup remedies ( avoiding LDR treatment standards) and the decision to pursue other administrative remedies such as treatability variances. As the result, EPA has estimated the incremental treatment cost savings attributable to the deferral of the Phase IV LDR treatment standards for PCBs as a UHC in hazardous soils to total between $ 35.3 million and $ 86 million annually for the thermal treatment baseline   post regulatory scenario and $ 33.2 million and $ 55.3 million annually for the multiple remedy/ response baseline post regulatory scenario.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq., when an agency publishes a notice of rulemaking, for a rule that will have a VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 12: 42 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1 7813 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, the agency must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that considers the effect of the rule on small entities ( i. e., small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions). The overall economic impact of today's proposed rule to defer LDR treatment standards for TC metal PCB containing hazardous waste soils results in cost savings ranging from $ 33.2 million to $ 86 million. For the reasons stated above in the estimated cost savings discussion of section X. A. 3, the Agency does not believe that today's proposed rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. EPA has determined that this rule does not include a federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $ 100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. The rule would not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it imposes no enforceable duty upon state, tribal or local governments. States, tribes and local governments would have no compliance costs under this rule. It is expected that states will adopt this rule, and submit it for inclusion in their authorized RCRA programs, but they have no legally enforceable duty to do so. 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. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared and Information Collection Request ( ICR) document: OSWER ICR No. 1442.15 ( LDR PhaseIV), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer by mail at OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, D. C. 20460, by email at farmer. sandy@ epamail. epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 260   2740. A copy may also be downloaded off the internet at http:/ / www. epa. gov/ icr. EPA believes the changes in this proposed rule to the information collection do not constitute a substantive or material modification. This proposed rule would not change any of the information collection requirements that are currently applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV except to possibly reduce those requirements by requiring fewer references to PCBs. There is no net increase in recordkeeping and reporting requirements ( if anything, there may be a slight decrease, as just noted). As a result, the reporting, notification, or recordkeeping ( information) provisions of this rule will not need to be submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) under section 3504( b) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et. seq. E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 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. This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The public is invited to submit or identify peer reviewed studies and data, of which the agency may not be aware, that assessed results of early life exposure that may result from this activity.

F. 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. This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

G. Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice Under Executive Order 12898, `` Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 12: 42 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1 7814 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, `` Environmental Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities. To address this goal, EPA considered the impacts of this final rule on low income populations and minority populations and concluded. Today's proposed rule is intended to encourage aggressive remediation of contaminated soils, and thus, and to benefit all populations. As such, this rule is not expected to cause any disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority or low income communities versus non minority or affluent communities.

H. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 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'' are 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. EPA has determined that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have `` federalism implications'' within the meaning of Executive Order 13132. This is because the proposal would not impose any direct effects on States, would not preempt State law, and would not constrain State administrative discretion. In fact, States need not even adopt this proposal as part of their authorized programs. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268 Environmental protection, Hazardous waste.

Dated: February 9, 2000.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 268   LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U. S. C. 6905, 6912( a), 6921, and 6924.

Subpart C   [ Amended]

2. Section 268.32 is added to subpart C to read as follows:

§ 268.32 Waste specific prohibitions   California list waste.

Effective [ insert effective date of final rule], hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic compounds in total concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/ kg are prohibited from land disposal.

Subpart D   [ Amended]

3. Section 268.49 is amended by revising paragraph ( d) to read as follows:

§ 268.49 Alternative LDR treatment standards for contaminated soil.

* * * * *

( d) Constituents subject to treatment. When applying the soil treatment standards in paragraph ( c) of this section, constituents subject to treatment are any constituents listed in 40 CFR 268.48 Table UTS Universal Treatment Standards that reasonable expected to be present in any given volume of contaminated soil, except flouride, selenium, sulfides, vanadium, zinc, and PCB's when present in soils exhibiting the characteristic of toxicity solely because of presence of metals, at concentrations greater than ten times the universal treatment standard. * * * * * [ FR Doc. 00   3672 Filed 2   15   00; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P VerDate 27< JAN> 2000 12: 42 Feb 15, 2000 Jkt 190000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16FEP1. SGM pfrm02 PsN: 16FEP1


[Federal Register: October 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 58084-58085]
[DOCID:fr12oc07-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8481-7]

Announcement of the National Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Priorities for Fiscal Years 2008, 2009 and 2010

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is a Federal Agency announcement of the triennial
national enforcement and compliance assurance priorities to be
addressed for fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. EPA appreciates the
comments submitted in March 2007 during the priority identification
process in response to the February 9, 2007 Federal Register Notice (72
FR 6239). The final priority selections have been incorporated into the
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance National Program
Managers' (NPM) Guidance (which provides national program direction for
all EPA Regional offices). These priorities also support implementation
of the enforcement and compliance goals and objectives outlined in Goal
5 of EPA's Strategic Plan, as mandated under the Government Performance
and Results Act.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Knopes, Deputy Director,
National Planning Measures and Analysis Staff; telephone: (202) 564-
2337 or facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. General Information

    EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) selects
multi-year national priorities focusing on specific environmental
problems, risks, or patterns of noncompliance. A performance based
strategy is developed for each national priority to characterize the
problem and set goals for addressing it. The intent of this Notice is
to announce EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance priorities for
the years 2008-2010.
    The FY 2008-2010 OECA national priorities are shown below.
     Clean Water Act--Stormwater.
     Clean Water Act--Combined Sewer Overflow.
     Clean Water Act--Sanitary Sewer Overflow.
     Clean Water Act--Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
     Clean Air Act--New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
     Clean Air Act--Air Toxics.
     RCRA & CERCLA--Financial Assurance.
     RCRA--Mineral Processing.
     Indian Country.
    The FY 2005-2007 Petroleum Refining priority will not continue into
FY 2008-2010 as a national priority. The priority has met its primary
goal of addressing 80% of the national refining capacity and was
returned to the core program at the end of FY 2006. It is important to
note that discontinuation as a national priority does not mean that the
Agency will no longer focus on this area, but rather the work will
continue as part of the Agency's core program activities.
    For each of the national priority areas, EPA has developed a
strategy designed to achieve specific goals. The strategy summaries
included here contain a description of the environmental problem or
noncompliance problem; why the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance is addressing the problem; how the problem will be addressed;
and, highlights the progress made by the priorities for fiscal year
2005 through 2007. The strategy

summaries can be found at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/priorities/index.html
.

    Annual results information for the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance can be found on EPA's Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/annual/index.html
.

    Annual results information for fiscal year 2007 will be available
on November 16, 2007.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Related Materials?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2007-0917. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OECA Docket in the EPA

Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OECA Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listing at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

    Dated: October 5, 2007.
Michael M. Stahl,
Director, Office of Compliance, Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
 [FR Doc. E7-20164 Filed 10-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37162-37163]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16650]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0070]

Agency Request for Approval of a New Information Collection:
Recruitment and Debriefing of Human Subjects for a Study on Commercial
Vehicle Crash Avoidance Systems (CAS)

ACTION: Request for public comments on a proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This
document describes a new information collection for which NHTSA intends
to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2017-
0070 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submission must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulation.gov, including any personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow
the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alrik L. Svenson, Office of Vehicle
Safety Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For access to background documents,
please contact Mr. Svenson.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    Title: Field Study of Newer Generation Heavy Vehicle Automatic
Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection.
    Background: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) is assessing the benefits of crash avoidance technologies for
heavy trucks that include Automatic Emergency

Braking (AEB) to prevent fatalities, injuries, and property damage in
crashes involving heavy vehicles. Previous studies have investigated
crash problem size, economic cost, and preliminary safety benefits
concerning these systems. The underlying methods of these studies have
included test track evaluations, objective test procedures, technology
field demonstrations, and ``naturalistic'' studies. As both of the
major AEB system suppliers are scheduled to release new products in the
second half of 2016, NHTSA is interested in the real world performance
of these new systems, which are designed to address the shortcomings of
the previous generation of AEB systems. These systems have been
designed to offer improved threat detection and new features such as
stationary object braking. Additionally, a new product called Detroit
Assurance\TM\ was released in 2015 for Freightliner trucks by Detroit
Diesel Corporation. This system shares many features with the OnGuard
and Wingman[supreg] products including advanced emergency braking
(AEB), forward collision warnings (FCW), and adaptive cruise control
(ACC).
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The collection of information consists of: (1) A
demographic questionnaire, (2) initial CAS technology questionnaires,
and (3) post study CAS technology questionnaire.
    The information to be collected will be used as follows:
     Demographic questionnaire will be used to obtain
demographic information so that analysis may account for participants
from various groups (e.g., age gender, driving experience, and
experience with CAS technology).
     Initial CAS technology questionnaires will be used to get
information about drivers' beliefs and attitude towards the CAS
technology installed on the commercial vehicle they use for their job.
These questionnaires will assess perceived usability of the systems in
terms of acceptance and satisfaction, as well as willingness to have
this technology in their vehicle. Each driver will complete this survey
at the start of his or her data collection.
     Post study CAS technology questionnaires will be used to
get information about drivers' beliefs and attitude towards the CAS
technology installed on the commercial vehicle they use for their job.
These questionnaires will also be used to assess perceived distraction
potential of the systems in terms. Each driver will complete a post
study questionnaire once, after the completion of his or her data
collection. The post study survey will gauge how drivers' attitudes and
preferences may have changed over the course of participation.
     Each participating driver will have a data acquisition
system installed in their vehicle for three months while they perform
their normal work duties. This system will collect video of the driver
and forward roadway, telemetry and vehicle network data related to
driving, and activations of the vehicle's CAS.
    Respondents: Commercial vehicle drivers who are assigned a single,
specific commercial vehicle that is equipped with the eligible
technologies. Trucking fleets (approximately 7-10) will be contacted
first to see if they have trucks equipped with the technologies and
would be willing to have their drivers participate in the study.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 175, after compensating for
potential drop-outs
    Estimated Number of Responses: Full participation in the study will
include 3 responses for a total of 92 questions per participant, plus a
consent form that will be reviewed prior to participation.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 110 minutes per respondent,
including consent (204 hours total).
    Estimated Frequency: Twice at the start of participation
(demographic and initial CAS technology surveys), once at the
completion of participation approximately 3 months later.

                                                             Table 1--Estimated Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                             Number of                                       Estimated         Total         annualize
                       Instrument                           respondents    Frequency of      Number of      individual       estimated        cost to
                                                                \1\          responses       questions        burden       burden  hours    respondents
                                                                                (minutes)                          \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Informed Consent Form...................................             175               1             N/A              10              29         $584.64
Demographic questionnaire...............................             175               1              19              10              29          584.64
Initial CAS Technology Survey...........................             175               1              36              25              73        1,471.68
Final CAS Technology Survey.............................             175               1              37              25              73        1,471.68
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............             204        4,112.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of respondents in this table includes drop-out rates.
\2\ Estimated based on the mean hourly rate nationwide for Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers of $20.16 as reported in the May 2014 Occupational
  Employment and Wage Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#35-0000.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2017-16650 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P