56970 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Authority: Sec. 201, Pub. L. 99–571, 100 

Stat. 3222–23 (31 U.S.C. 3121, 9110); Sec. 

101, Pub. L. 99–571, 100 Stat. 3208 (15 U.S.C. 

78o–5(b)(1)(A), (b)(4), (b)(5)(B)).

2. Section 450.3 is amended by 

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 450.3 Exemption for holdings subject to 

fiduciary standards. 

(a) The Secretary has determined that 

the rules and standards of the 

Comptroller of the Currency, the Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation, and the Office of Thrift 

Supervision governing the holding of 

government securities in a fiduciary 

capacity by depository institutions 

subject thereto are adequate. 

Accordingly, such depository 

institutions are exempt from this Part 

with respect to their holdings of 

government securities in a fiduciary 

capacity and their holdings of 

government securities in a custodial 

capacity provided that: 

(1) Such institution has adopted 

policies and procedures that would 

apply to such custodial holdings all the 

requirements imposed by its appropriate 

regulatory agency that are applicable to 

government securities held in a 

fiduciary capacity, and 

(2) Such custodial holdings are 

subject to examination by the 

appropriate regulatory agency for 

compliance with such fiduciary 

requirements.

* * * * *

Dated: September 8, 2004. 

Timothy S. Bitsberger, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Financial 

Markets.

[FR Doc. 04–21334 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–39–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7817–7] 

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled 

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule 

No. 41

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended, 

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list 

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining 

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may 

be appropriate. This rule proposes 14 

new sites to the NPL; all to the General 

Superfund Section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these 

proposed listings must be submitted 

(postmarked) on or before November 22, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: By electronic access: Go 

directly to EPA Dockets at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket and follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once in the system, select 

‘‘search’’, and then key Docket ID No. 

SFUND–2004–0012. The system is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity, 

e-mail address, or other contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. 

By Postal Mail: Mail original and 

three copies of comments (no facsimiles 

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office (Mail Code 5305T); 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. 

SFUND–2004–0012. 

By Express Mail or Courier: Send 

original and three copies of comments 

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket 

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 

B102, Washington, DC 20004, Attention 

Docket ID No. SFUND–2004–0012. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday excluding Federal holidays). 

By e-Mail: Comments in ASCII format 

only may be mailed directly to 

superfund.docket@epa.gov. Cite the 

Docket ID No. SFUND–2004–0012 in 

your electronic file. Please note that 

EPA’s e-mail system automatically 

captures your e-mail address and is 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public dockets and made 

available in EPA’s electronic public 

docket. 

For additional Docket addresses and 

further details on their contents, see 

section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public 

Comment,’’ of the Supplementary 

Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603–8835, 

State, Tribal and Site Identification 

Branch; Assessment and Remediation 

Division; Office of Superfund 

Remediation and Technology 

Innovation (Mail Code 5204G); U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, 

Phone (800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–

9810 in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

B. What Is the NCP? 

C. What Is the National Priorities List 

(NPL)? 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? 

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of 

Sites? 

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL? 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From 

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

I. What Is the Construction Completion List 

(CCL)? 

II. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant 

to This Proposed Rule? 

B. How Do I Access the Documents? 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Public Review at the Headquarters 

Docket? 

D. What Documents Are Available for 

Public Review at the Regional Dockets? 

E. How Do I Submit My Comments? 

F. What Happens to My Comments? 

G. What Should I Consider When 

Preparing My Comments? 

H. May I Submit Comments After the 

Public Comment Period Is Over? 

I. May I View Public Comments Submitted 

by Others? 

J. May I Submit Comments Regarding Sites 

Not Currently Proposed to the NPL? 

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

B. Status of NPL 

C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the 

NPL 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

2. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to 

Executive Order 12866 Review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How Has EPA Complied with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 56971

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed 

Rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It 

Applicable to This Proposed Rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175? 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Proposed Rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health and 

Safety Risks 

1. What is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

this Proposed Rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211 

1. What is Executive Order 13211? 

2. Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 

13211? 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

2. Does the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act Apply to This 

Proposed Rule?

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or 

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of 

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant which 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 which 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 by SARA. Section 

105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of 

‘‘releases’’ and the highest priority 

‘‘facilities’’ and requires that the NPL be 

revised at least annually. The NPL is 

intended primarily to guide EPA in 

determining which sites warrant further 

investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of public health and 

environmental risks associated with a 

release of hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants. The NPL is 

only of limited significance, however, as 

it does not assign liability to any party 

or to the owner of any specific property. 

Neither does placing a site on the NPL 

mean that any remedial or removal 

action necessarily need be taken. 

For purposes of listing, the NPL 

includes two sections, one of sites that 

are generally evaluated and cleaned up 

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund 

Section’’), and one of sites that are 

owned or operated by other Federal 

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities 

Section’’). With respect to sites in the 

Federal Facilities section, these sites are 

generally being addressed by other 

Federal agencies. Under Executive 

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29, 

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each 

Federal agency is responsible for 

carrying out most response actions at 

facilities under its own jurisdiction, 

custody, or control, although EPA is 

responsible for preparing an HRS score 

and determining whether the facility is 

placed on the NPL. At Federal Facilities 

Section sites, EPA’s role is less 

extensive than at other sites. 

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL? 

There are three mechanisms for 

placing sites on the NPL for possible 

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) 

of the NCP): (1) A site may be included 

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high 

on the Hazard Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’), 

which EPA promulgated as appendix A 

of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS 

serves as a screening device to evaluate 

the relative potential of uncontrolled 

hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants to pose a threat to human 

health or the environment. On 

December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA 

promulgated revisions to the HRS partly 

in response to CERCLA section 105(c), 

added by SARA. The revised HRS 

evaluates four pathways: ground water, 

surface water, soil exposure, and air. As 

a matter of Agency policy, those sites 

that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS 

are eligible for the NPL; (2) Pursuant to 

42 U.S.C 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may 

designate a single site as its top priority 

to be listed on the NPL, without any 

HRS score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each State as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism 

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites 

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met: 

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• EPA anticipates that it will be more 

cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658). The NPL has been expanded 

since then, most recently on July 22, 

2004 (69 FR 43755). 

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 

56972 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

removal actions. * * *’’ 42 U.S.C. 

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 

300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL 

‘‘does not imply that monies will be 

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other 

appropriate authorities to respond to the 

releases, including enforcement action 

under CERCLA and other laws.

F. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries 

of Sites? 

The NPL does not describe releases in 

precise geographical terms; it would be 

neither feasible nor consistent with the 

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify 

releases that are priorities for further 

evaluation), for it to do so. 

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is 

broadly defined to include any area 

where a hazardous substance has ‘‘come 

to be located’’ (CERCLA section 101(9)), 

the listing process itself is not intended 

to define or reflect the boundaries of 

such facilities or releases. Of course, 

HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a 

site) upon which the NPL placement 

was based will, to some extent, describe 

the release(s) at issue. That is, the NPL 

site would include all releases evaluated 

as part of that HRS analysis. 

When a site is listed, the approach 

generally used to describe the relevant 

release(s) is to delineate a geographical 

area (usually the area within an 

installation or plant boundaries) and 

identify the site by reference to that 

area. As a legal matter, the site is not 

coextensive with that area, and the 

boundaries of the installation or plant 

are not the ‘‘boundaries’’ of the site. 

Rather, the site consists of all 

contaminated areas within the area used 

to identify the site, as well as any other 

location to which that contamination 

has come to be located, or from which 

that contamination came. 

In other words, while geographic 

terms are often used to designate the site 

(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site’’) in terms 

of the property owned by a particular 

party, the site properly understood is 

not limited to that property (e.g., it may 

extend beyond the property due to 

contaminant migration), and conversely 

may not occupy the full extent of the 

property (e.g., where there are 

uncontaminated parts of the identified 

property, they may not be, strictly 

speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’

is thus neither equal to nor confined by 

the boundaries of any specific property 

that may give the site its name, and the 

name itself should not be read to imply 

that this site is coextensive with the 

entire area within the property 

boundary of the installation or plant. 

The precise nature and extent of the site 

are typically not known at the time of 

listing. Also, the site name is merely 

used to help identify the geographic 

location of the contamination. For 

example, the name ‘‘Jones Co. plant 

site,’’ does not imply that the Jones 

company is responsible for the 

contamination located on the plant site. 

EPA regulations provide that the 

‘‘nature and extent of the problem 

presented by the release’’ will be 

determined by a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (‘‘RI/FS’’) as more 

information is developed on site 

contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During 

the RI/FS process, the release may be 

found to be larger or smaller than was 

originally thought, as more is learned 

about the source(s) and the migration of 

the contamination. However, this 

inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the 

threat posed; the boundaries of the 

release need not be exactly defined. 

Moreover, it generally is impossible to 

discover the full extent of where the 

contamination ‘‘has come to be located’’

before all necessary studies and 

remedial work are completed at a site. 

Indeed, the boundaries of the 

contamination can be expected to 

change over time. Thus, in most cases, 

it may be impossible to describe the 

boundaries of a release with absolute 

certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, supporting information can be 

submitted to the Agency at any time 

after a party receives notice it is a 

potentially responsible party. 

For these reasons, the NPL need not 

be amended as further research reveals 

more information about the location of 

the contamination or release. 

G. How Are Sites Removed From the 

NPL? 

EPA may delete sites from the NPL 

where no further response is 

appropriate under Superfund, as 

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(e). This section also provides 

that EPA shall consult with states on 

proposed deletions and shall consider 

whether any of the following criteria 

have been met: (i) Responsible parties or 

other persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed 

response has been implemented and no 

further response action is required; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation has 

shown the release poses no significant 

threat to public health or the 

environment, and taking of remedial 

measures is not appropriate. As of 

September 13, 2004, the Agency has 

deleted 285 sites from the NPL. 

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites 

From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up? 

In November 1995, EPA initiated a 

new policy to delete portions of NPL 

sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 

55465, November 1, 1995). Total site 

cleanup may take many years, while 

portions of the site may have been 

cleaned up and available for productive 

use. As of September 13, 2004, EPA has 

deleted 46 portions of 38 sites. 

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. 

As of September 13, 2004, there are a 

total of 904 sites on the CCL. For the 

most up-to-date information on the CCL, 

see EPA’s Internet site at http://

www.epa.gov/superfund.

II. Public Review/Public Comment 

A. May I Review the Documents 

Relevant to This Proposed Rule? 

Yes, documents that form the basis for 

EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the sites 

in this rule are contained in public 

dockets located both at EPA 

Headquarters in Washington, DC and in 

the Regional offices. 

B. How Do I Access the Documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, in the Headquarters 

or the Regional dockets after the 

publication of this proposed rule. The 

hours of operation for the Headquarters 

docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday excluding 

Federal holidays. Please contact the 

Regional dockets for hours. 

The following is the contact 

information for the EPA Headquarters 

docket: Docket Coordinator, 

Headquarters; U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket 

Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA 

West, Room B102, Washington, DC 

20004, (202) 566–0276. (Please note this 

is a visiting address only. Mail 

comments to EPA Headquarters as 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 56973

detailed at the beginning of this 

preamble.) 

The contact information for the 

Regional dockets is as follows: 

Ellen Culhane, 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) 918–1225. 

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. 

John Wright, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, 

KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta, 

GA 30303; (404) 562–8123. 

Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, 

MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records 

Center, Superfund Division SRC–7J, 

Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 

(312) 353–5821.

Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, 

OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Mailcode 6SF–RA, Dallas, TX 75202–

2733; (214) 665–7436. 

Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, 

MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th 

Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; (913) 

551–7335. 

Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, 

MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 

18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR–

B, Denver, CO 80202–2466; (303) 312–

6463. 

Jerelean Johnson, Region 9 (AZ, CA, 

HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105; (415) 972–3094. 

Tara Martich, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, 

WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail 

Stop ECL–115, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 

553–0039. 

You may also request copies from 

EPA Headquarters or the Regional 

dockets. An informal request, rather 

than a formal written request under the 

Freedom of Information Act, should be 

the ordinary procedure for obtaining 

copies of any of these documents. 

You may also access this Federal 

Register document electronically 

through the EPA Internet under the 

‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at http://

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may use 

EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/

edocket to access the index listing of the 

contents of the Headquarters docket, 

and to access those documents in the 

Headquarters docket. Once in the 

system, select ‘‘search’’, then key in the 

Docket ID No. SFUND–2004–0012. 

Please note that there are differences 

between the Headquarters Docket and 

the Regional Dockets and those 

differences are outlined below. 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Public Review at the Headquarters 

Docket? 

The Headquarters docket for this rule 

contains: HRS score sheets for the 

proposed sites; a Documentation Record 

for the sites describing the information 

used to compute the score; information 

for any sites affected by particular 

statutory requirements or EPA listing 

policies; and a list of documents 

referenced in the Documentation 

Record. 

D. What Documents Are Available for 

Public Review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional dockets for this rule 

contain all of the information in the 

Headquarters docket, plus, the actual 

reference documents containing the data 

principally relied upon and cited by 

EPA in calculating or evaluating the 

HRS score for the sites. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional dockets. 

E. How Do I Submit My Comments? 

Comments must be submitted to EPA 

Headquarters as detailed at the 

beginning of this preamble in the 

‘‘Addresses’’ section. Please note that 

the addresses differ according to method 

of delivery. There are two different 

addresses that depend on whether 

comments are sent by express mail or by 

postal mail. 

F. What Happens to My Comments? 

EPA considers all comments received 

during the comment period. Significant 

comments will be addressed in a 

support document that EPA will publish 

concurrently with the Federal Register

document if, and when, the site is listed 

on the NPL. 

G. What Should I Consider When 

Preparing My Comments? 

Comments that include complex or 

voluminous reports, or materials 

prepared for purposes other than HRS 

scoring, should point out the specific 

information that EPA should consider 

and how it affects individual HRS factor 

values or other listing criteria 

(Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas,

849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). EPA 

will not address voluminous comments 

that are not specifically cited by page 

number and referenced to the HRS or 

other listing criteria. EPA will not 

address comments unless they indicate 

which component of the HRS 

documentation record or what 

particular point in EPA’s stated 

eligibility criteria is at issue. 

H. May I Submit Comments After the 

Public Comment Period Is Over? 

Generally, EPA will not respond to 

late comments. EPA can only guarantee 

that it will consider those comments 

postmarked by the close of the formal 

comment period. EPA has a policy of 

generally not delaying a final listing 

decision solely to accommodate 

consideration of late comments. 

I. May I View Public Comments 

Submitted by Others? 

During the comment period, 

comments are placed in the 

Headquarters docket and are available to 

the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. A 

complete set of comments will be 

available for viewing in the Regional 

dockets approximately one week after 

the formal comment period closes. 

All public comments, whether 

submitted electronically or in paper, 

will be made available for public 

viewing in EPA’s electronic public 

docket (EPA Dockets at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket) as EPA receives 

them and without change, unless the 

comment contains copyrighted material, 

Confidential Business Information (CBI), 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Once in the EPA 

Dockets system, select ‘‘search’’, then 

key in the Docket ID No. SFUND–2004–

0012. For additional information about 

EPA’s electronic public docket, visit 

EPA Dockets online at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket or see the May 31, 

2002 Federal Register (67 FR 38102). 

J. May I Submit Comments Regarding 

Sites Not Currently Proposed to the 

NPL? 

In certain instances, interested parties 

have written to EPA concerning sites 

which were not at that time proposed to 

the NPL. If those sites are later proposed 

to the NPL, parties should review their 

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate, 

resubmit those concerns for 

consideration during the formal 

comment period. Site-specific 

correspondence received prior to the 

period of formal proposal and comment 

will not generally be included in the 

docket. 

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL 

With today’s proposed rule, EPA is 

proposing to add 14 new sites to the 

NPL; all to the General Superfund 

Section of the NPL. All of the sites in 

this proposed rulemaking are being 

proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 

56974 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

or above. The sites are presented in 

Table 1 which follows this preamble. 

B. Status of NPL 

A final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register finalizes two 

sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of 

1,244; 1086 in the General Superfund 

Section and 158 in the Federal Facilities 

Section. With this proposal of 14 new 

sites and the withdrawal of one 

proposal discussed below, there are now 

68 sites proposed and awaiting final 

agency action, 61 in the General 

Superfund Section and seven in the 

Federal Facilities Section. Final and 

proposed sites now total 1,312. (These 

numbers reflect the status of sites as of 

September 13, 2004. Site deletions 

occurring after this date may affect these 

numbers at time of publication in the 

Federal Register.) 

C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to 

the NPL 

EPA is withdrawing the proposal to 

add the East Multnomah County Ground 

Water Contamination site in Multnomah 

County, Oregon to the NPL. The 

proposed rule can be found at 58 FR 

27507 (May 10, 1993). Refer to the 

Superfund docket for supporting 

documentation regarding this action. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency 

must determine whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to 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 Proposed Rule Subject to 

Executive Order 12866 Review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Proposed Rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has 

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act? 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare and make available for public 

comment a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This proposed rule listing sites on the 

NPL, if promulgated, would not impose 

any obligations on any group, including 

small entities. This proposed rule, if 

promulgated, also would establish no 

standards or requirements that any 

small entity must meet, and would 

impose no direct costs on any small 

entity. Whether an entity, small or 

otherwise, is liable for response costs for 

a release of hazardous substances 

depends on whether that entity is liable 

under CERCLA 107(a). Any such 

liability exists regardless of whether the 

site is listed on the NPL through this 

rulemaking. Thus, this proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not impose any 

requirements on any small entities. For 

the foregoing reasons, I certify that this 

proposed rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 56975

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 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. 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed 

Rule? 

No, EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector in any one year. 

This rule will not impose any Federal 

intergovernmental mandate because it 

imposes no enforceable duty upon State, 

tribal or local governments. Listing a 

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 

1. What Is Executive Order 13132 and 

Is It Applicable to This Proposed Rule? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law, unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What is Executive Order 13175?

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Proposed Rule? 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes, 

as specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866; and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Proposed Rule? 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant rule as 

defined by Executive Order 12866, and 

because the Agency does not have 

reason to believe the environmental 

health or safety risks addressed by this 

proposed rule present a 

disproportionate risk to children. 

H. Executive Order 13211

1. What Is Executive Order 13211? 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001), requires EPA to prepare and 

submit a Statement of Energy Effects to 

the Administrator of the Office of 

56976 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, for 

certain actions identified as ‘‘significant 

energy actions.’’ Section 4(b) of 

Executive Order 13211 defines 

‘‘significant energy actions’’ as ‘‘any 

action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to the 

promulgation of a final rule or 

regulation, including notices of inquiry, 

advance notices of proposed 

rulemaking, and notices of proposed 

rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy; or (2) that is designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action.’’

2. Is This Rule Subject to Executive 

Order 13211? 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 (See discussion of Executive 

Order 12866 above.) 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

1. What Is the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act? 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply 

to This Proposed Rule? 

No. This proposed rulemaking does 

not involve technical standards. 

Therefore, EPA did not consider the use 

of any voluntary consensus standards.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

PROPOSED RULE NO. 41, GENERAL

SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county 

CA ........ Klau/Buena 

Vista Mine.

San Luis 

Obispo County. 

IL .......... Hegeler Zinc .... Danville. 

NC ........ Sigmon’s Septic 

Tank Service.

Statesville. 

NE ........ Parkview Well .. Grand Island. 

NJ ........ Crown Vantage 

Landfill.

Alexandria 

Township. 

NY ........ Hopewell Precision Area 

Contamination.

Hopewell Junction. 

OH ....... Copley Square 

Plaza.

Copley. 

OH ....... South Dayton 

Dump & 

Landfill.

Moraine. 

PA ........ Price Battery .... Hamburg. 

PA ........ Safety Light 

Corporation.

Bloomsburg. 

PR ........ Pesticide Warehouse I.Arecibo. 

SC ........ Brewer Gold 

Mine.

Jefferson. 

TN ........ Smalley-Piper ... Collierville. 

VT ........ Commerce 

Street Plume.

Williston. 

Number of Sites Proposed to General 

Superfund Section: 14. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: September 17, 2004. 

Thomas P. Dunne, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 04–21387 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 22, 24 and 64 

[ET Docket No. 04–295; FCC 04–187] 

Communications Assistance for Law 

Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document launches a 

thorough examination of the appropriate 

legal and policy framework of the 1994 

Communications Assistance for Law 

Enforcement Act (‘‘CALEA’’). We 

initiate this proceeding at the request of, 

and in response to, a joint petition filed 

by the Department of Justice, Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(collectively, ‘‘Law Enforcement’’).

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before November 8, 2004, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

December 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rodney Small, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, (202) 418–2454, email: Rodney.Small@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 

418–2989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 

04–295, FCC 04–187, adopted August 4, 

2004, and released August 9, 2004. The 

full text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of this document also may 

be purchased from the Commission’s 

copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, 

Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY–

B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full 

text may also be downloaded at: http:/

/www.fcc.gov. Alternate formats are 

available to persons with disabilities by 

contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418–

7426 or TTY (202) 418–7365. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before November 8, 

2004, and reply comments on or before 

December 7, 2004. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing 

of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

Comments filed through the ECFS can 

be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

If multiple docket or rulemaking 

numbers appear in the caption of this 

proceeding, however, commenters must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments to each docket or rulemaking 

number referenced in the caption. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by