Epa Superfund Cooperative Agreements

Posted by tommy

Given Indiantribes` multiple interests in the super-bottom cleanup process, the EPA reduces unnecessary barriers to tribal participation. In enacting the current regulation, CEPOL made a political decision to require Indian strains to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 300.515 (b), including the establishment of a jurisdiction below 40 CFR 300.515 (b) (3), in order to benefit from a cooperation agreement under this subsection. The revised regulation removes the requirement to prove responsibility for all tribal core program and most tribal support agency agreements. In order to take into account the reduction in the importance of jurisdiction and to make the language of the regulation more precise, the regulation is amended in several appropriate places to remove references to the “jurisdiction” of the tribes and to refer to a tribal region of the Indian country. The regulation also removes the cost-involved requirements of the core program and the cooperation agreements support agency. As a result, Indiantribes does not have a cost-share requirement under the revised regulations. Finally, an Indian tribe is not obligated to acquire a stake in real estate or to accept the transfer of acquired property through CERCLA funds. This is not necessary under section 104 (d) of the CERCLA. (ii) Although intergovernmental agreements do not meet the requirements of this section. 35.6610, all purchases under intergovernmental agreements are subject to these requirements, with the exception of: b) The recipient must comply with applicable federal property acquisition rules under support agreements in Part 4 of this chapter “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs.” (9) Intergovernmental agreements. (i) In order to increase profitability and efficiency, beneficiaries are encouraged to enter into intergovernmental agreements on the acquisition or use of common goods and services.

From the outset of the process of developing this regulation, CEPOL consulted with tribal officials to enable them to contribute meaningfully and in a timely manner to its development. During the initial deliberations on revisions to this rule, a tribal representative actively joined the regulatory working group and helped identify issues that are likely to be of concern to tribal governments. CEPOL, for its part, discussed these issues with tribal representatives, who participated in a simultaneous initiative to strengthen the role of the state and tribes in the super-outcome. And the rule has been widely informed by the experience of tribes and the EPA over 16 years of experience under the old regulations. In the end, CEPOL`s Regulatory Working Group drew on the knowledge and experience of the consultation to identify positive changes for tribes and incorporate them into the regulations. The main changes made (further in Section IV) were: (a) the cost-sharing requirement for groups receiving the core programme and support for the start-up cooperation agreement 24503, (b) the removal of jurisdictional requirements for all basic agreements and most support agency agreements and (c) the inclusion of intertribal consortia as eligible entities benefiting from cooperation agreements.