Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56949

EPA-APPROVED IOWA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS—Continued

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation 

(25) Letter Pertaining to 

NOX Rules and Analysis 

Which Certifies the Material Was Adopted by the 

State on October 17, 

1990.

Statewide ............................ 11/8/90 ...................... 2/13/91, 56 FR 5757.

(26) SO2 Plan ...................... Clinton ................................. 3/13/91 ...................... 11/1/91, 56 FR 56158.

(27) Letter Withdrawing 

Variance Provisions.

Polk County ........................ 10/23/91 .................... 11/29/91, 56 FR 60924 ....... Correction notice published 

1/26/93. 

(28) Letter Concerning Open 

Burning Exemptions.

Statewide ............................ 10/3/91 ...................... 1/22/92, 57 FR 2472.

(29) Compliance Sampling 

Manual.

Statewide ............................ 1/5/93 ........................ 5/12/93, 58 FR 27939.

(30) Small Business Assistance Plan.Statewide ............................ 12/22/92 .................... 9/27/93, 58 FR 50266.

(31) Voluntary Operating 

Permit Program.

Statewide ............................ 12/8/94, 2/16/96, 2/

27/96.

4/30/96, 61 FR 18958.

(32) SO2 Plan ...................... Muscatine ............................ 6/19/96, 5/21/97 ........ 12/1/97, 62 FR 63454.

(33) SO2 Maintenance Plan Muscatine ............................ 4/25/97 ...................... 3/19/98, 63 FR 13343.

(34) SO2 Control Plan ......... Cedar Rapids ...................... 9/11/98 ...................... 3/11/99, 64 FR 12090.

(35) PM10 Control Plan ........ Buffalo, Iowa ....................... 10/1/98 ...................... 3/18/99, 64 FR 13346.

■ 3. Section 52.824 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§ 52.824 Original identification of plan 

section.

* * * * *

(b) The plan was officially submitted 

on January 27, 1972.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–21386 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[FRL–7817–6] 

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled 

Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

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

requires that the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

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

of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants throughout the United 

States. The National Priorities List 

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

intended primarily to guide the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

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

which sites warrant further 

investigation. These further 

investigations will allow EPA to assess 

the nature and extent of public health 

and environmental risks associated with 

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

be appropriate. This rule adds two new 

sites to the NPL; both to the General 

Superfund Section of the NPL.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

for this amendment to the NCP shall be 

October 25, 2004.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the 

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 

well as further details on what these 

dockets contain, see section II, 

‘‘Availability of Information to the 

Public’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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. Availability of Information to the Public 

A. May I Review the Documents Relevant 

to This Final Rule? 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL 

Sites? 

III. Contents of This Final Rule 

A. Additions to the NPL 

B. Status of NPL 

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. What Is Executive Order 12866? 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive 

Order 12866 Review? 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Final Rule? 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act (UMRA)? 

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule? 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

1. What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It 

Applicable to This Final Rule? 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What Is Executive Order 13175? 

56950 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

H. Executive Order 13211 

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 

Final Rule? 

J. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of 

the Rule 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the General Accounting 

Office? 

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

3. What Could Cause a Change in the 

Effective Date of This Rule?

I. Background 

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA? 

In 1980, Congress enacted the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

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

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

uncontrolled releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances, and 

releases or substantial threats of releases 

into the environment of any pollutant or 

contaminant 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. 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, pollutant or 

contaminants to pose a threat to human 

health or the environment. On 

December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA 

promulgated revisions to the HRS partly 

in response to CERCLA section 105(c), 

added by SARA. The revised HRS 

evaluates four pathways: ground water, 

surface water, soil exposure, and air. As 

a matter of Agency policy, those sites 

that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS 

are eligible for the NPL: (2) Pursuant to 

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

designate a single site as its top priority 

to be listed on the NPL, without any 

HRS score. This provision of CERCLA 

requires that, to the extent practicable, 

the NPL include one facility designated 

by each State as the greatest danger to 

public health, welfare, or the 

environment among known facilities in 

the State. This mechanism for listing is 

set out in the NCP at 40 CFR 

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

for listing, included in the NCP at 40 

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

to be listed without any HRS score, if all 

of the following conditions are met:

• The Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the 

U.S. Public Health Service has issued a 

health advisory that recommends 

dissociation of individuals from the 

release. 

• EPA determines that the release 

poses a significant threat to public 

health. 

• EPA anticipates that it will be more 

cost-effective to use its remedial 

authority than to use its removal 

authority to respond to the release. 

EPA promulgated an original NPL of 

406 sites on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 

40658). 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 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56951

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 release 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 known boundaries of the 

contamination can be expected to 

change over time. Thus, in most cases, 

it may be impossible to describe the 

boundaries of a release with absolute 

certainty. 

Further, as noted above, NPL listing 

does not assign liability to any party or 

to the owner of any specific property. 

Thus, if a party does not believe it is 

liable for releases on discrete parcels of 

property, 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 Superfundfinanced 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. Availability of Information to the 

Public 

A. May I Review the Documents 

Relevant to This Final Rule? 

Yes, documents relating to the 

evaluation and scoring of the sites in 

this final rule are contained in dockets 

located both at EPA Headquarters and in 

the Regional offices. 

An electronic version of the public 

docket is available through EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA 

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

to view public comments, access the 

index listing of the contents of the 

official public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket 

that are available electronically. Once in 

the system, select ‘‘Quick Search,’’ then 

key in the appropriate docket 

identification number; SFUND–2004–

0013. (Although not all docket materials 

may be available electronically, you 

may still access any of the publicly 

available docket materials through the 

docket facilities identified below in 

section II D.) 

56952 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

B. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Headquarters Docket? 

The Headquarters docket for this rule 

contains, for each site, the HRS score 

sheets, the Documentation Record 

describing the information used to 

compute the score, pertinent 

information regarding statutory 

requirements or EPA listing policies that 

affect the site, and a list of documents 

referenced in the Documentation 

Record. The Headquarters docket also 

contains comments received, and the 

Agency’s responses to those comments. 

The Agency’s responses are contained 

in the ‘‘Support Document for the 

Revised National Priorities List Final 

Rule—September 2004’’. An electronic 

version is available at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/ using the docket 

identification number SFUND–2004–

0013. 

C. What Documents Are Available for 

Review at the Regional Dockets? 

The Regional dockets contain all the 

information in the Headquarters docket, 

plus the actual reference documents 

containing the data principally relied 

upon by EPA in calculating or 

evaluating the HRS score for the sites 

located in their Region. These reference 

documents are available only in the 

Regional dockets. 

D. How Do I Access the Documents? 

You may view the documents, by 

appointment only, after the publication 

of this document. The hours of 

operation for the Headquarters docket 

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

through Friday, excluding Federal 

holidays. Please contact the Regional 

dockets for hours.

Following is the contact information 

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket 

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency; 

CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 

Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room 

B102, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566–

0276. 

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. 

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of 

NPL Sites? 

You may obtain a current list of NPL 

sites via the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under 

the Superfund sites category) or by 

contacting the Superfund Docket (see

contact information above). 

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL 

This final rule adds two sites to the 

NPL; both to the General Superfund 

Section of the NPL. The two sites are the 

White Swan Cleaners/Sun Cleaners 

Area Ground Water Contamination site 

in Wall Township, New Jersey and the 

Ravenswood PCE Ground Water Plume 

site in Ravenswood, West Virginia. 

B. Status of NPL 

With the two new sites added to the 

NPL in today’s final rule; the NPL now 

contains 1,244 final sites; 1,086 in the 

General Superfund Section and 158 in 

the Federal Facilities Section. In 

addition, with a proposed rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register proposing 14 new sites and 

withdrawing one proposed site, 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. What Did EPA Do With the Public 

Comments It Received? 

The White Swan Cleaners/Sun 

Cleaners Area Ground Water 

Contamination site was proposed to the 

NPL on April 30, 2003 (68 FR 23094). 

EPA responded to all relevant 

comments received on this site and 

EPA’s responses to the site-specific 

comments are addressed in the 

‘‘Support Document for the Revised 

National Priorities List Final Rule—

September 2004’’. The comments and 

the support document are contained in 

the Headquarters Docket and are also 

listed in EPA’s electronic public docket 

and comment system at http://

www.epa.gov/edocket/ using the 

SFUND–2004–0013 identification 

number. 

The Ravenswood PCE Ground Water 

Plume site was proposed to the NPL on 

March 8, 2004 (69 FR 10646). EPA 

received only one comment on the site, 

a May 4, 2004 resolution passed by the 

town council and signed by Mayor Clare 

Roseberry. The resolution requested a 

90 day extension of the comment period 

to allow the town time to develop an 

alternative cleanup plan rather than 

proceeding through listing on the NPL. 

EPA responded to the request on July 

21, 2004, denying an extension of the 

comment period because EPA’s general 

policy is to deny requests for extension 

unless the requester identifies issues 

that effect the requesters ability to 

develop relevant comments in a timely 

manner. EPA noted in its response the 

possibility that late comments could be 

considered. 

Neither the requester or any other 

party submitted additional comments or 

contacted the Agency either during or 

after the close of the public comment 

period concerning alternatives to NPL 

listing or the underlying basis for the 

NPL listing. EPA is adding the 

Ravenswood PCE Ground Water Plume 

site to the NPL at this time. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56953

to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more or adversely affect in a 

material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or tribal 

governments or communities; (2) create 

a serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impact of 

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to 

Executive Order 12866 Review? 

No. The listing of sites on the NPL 

does not impose any obligations on any 

entities. The listing does not set 

standards or a regulatory regime and 

imposes no liability or costs. Any 

liability under CERCLA exists 

irrespective of whether a site is listed. 

It has been determined that this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under the terms of Executive Order 

12866 and is therefore not subject to 

OMB review. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction 

Act? 

According to the Paperwork 

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

that requires OMB approval under the 

PRA, unless it has been approved by 

OMB and displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after 

initial display in the preamble of the 

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act 

Apply to This Final Rule? 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

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

determined that the PRA does not apply 

because this rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require approval of the OMB. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act?

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

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

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996) whenever an agency is required to 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of an agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that a 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

2. How Has EPA Complied With the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act? 

This rule listing sites on the NPL does 

not impose any obligations on any 

group, including small entities. This 

rule also does not establish standards or 

requirements that any small entity must 

meet, and imposes no direct costs on 

any small entity. Whether an entity, 

small or otherwise, is liable for response 

costs for a release of a hazardous 

substances depends on whether that 

entity is liable under CERCLA 107(a). 

Any such liability exists regardless of 

whether the site is listed on the NPL 

through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule 

does not impose any requirements on 

any small entities. For the foregoing 

reasons, I certify that this rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA)? 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Before EPA 

promulgates a rule 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 Final 

Rule? 

No, EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector in any one year. 

This rule will not impose any federal 

intergovernmental mandate because it 

imposes no enforceable duty upon State, 

tribal or local governments. Listing a 

56954 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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 Final Rule? 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

Under section 6 of Executive Order 

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation 

that has federalism implications, that 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs, and that is not required by statute, 

unless the Federal government provides 

the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and 

local governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law, unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the 

requirements of section 6 of the 

Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

1. What Is Executive Order 13175? 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’

2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

This final rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this final rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

1. What Is Executive Order 13045? 

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency.

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to 

This Final Rule? 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant rule as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

the Agency does not have reason to 

believe the environmental health or 

safety risks addressed by this section 

present a disproportionate risk to 

children. 

H. Executive Order 13211 

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 

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 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 56955

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

2. Does the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply 

to This Final Rule? 

No. This rulemaking does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Possible Changes to the Effective Date 

of the Rule 

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to 

Congress and the General Accounting 

Office?

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA has submitted 

a report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

2. Could the Effective Date of This Final 

Rule Change? 

Provisions of the Congressional 

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 

CERCLA may alter the effective date of 

this regulation. 

Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), 

before a rule can take effect the federal 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a report to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller 

General. This report must contain a 

copy of the rule, a concise general 

statement relating to the rule (including 

whether it is a major rule), a copy of the 

cost-benefit analysis of the rule (if any), 

the agency’s actions relevant to 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (affecting small businesses) and the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(describing unfunded federal 

requirements imposed on state and local 

governments and the private sector), 

and any other relevant information or 

requirements and any relevant 

Executive Orders. 

EPA has submitted a report under the 

CRA for this rule. The rule will take 

effect, as provided by law, within 30 

days of publication of this document, 

since it is not a major rule. Section 

804(2) defines a major rule as any rule 

that the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or 

is likely to result in: an annual effect on 

the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. NPL listing is not a 

major rule because, as explained above, 

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary 

costs on any person. It establishes no 

enforceable duties, does not establish 

that EPA necessarily will undertake 

remedial action, nor does it require any 

action by any party or determine its 

liability for site response costs. Costs 

that arise out of site responses result 

from site-by-site decisions about what 

actions to take, not directly from the act 

of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) 

provides for a delay in the effective date 

of major rules after this report is 

submitted. 

3. What Could Cause a Change in the 

Effective Date of This Rule? 

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall 

not take effect, or continue in effect, if 

Congress enacts (and the President 

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval, 

described under section 802. 

Another statutory provision that may 

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305, 

which provides for a legislative veto of 

regulations promulgated under 

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 

U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. 

of Regents of the University of 

Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 

(D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the 

legislative veto into question, EPA has 

transmitted a copy of this regulation to 

the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk 

of the House of Representatives.

If action by Congress under either the 

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the 

effective date of this regulation into 

question, EPA will publish a document 

of clarification in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

substances, Hazardous waste, 

Intergovernmental relations, Natural 

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: September 15, 2004. 

Thomas P. Dunne, 

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

■ 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows:

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by adding the following sites 

in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300—National 

Priorities List

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/County Notes a

* * * * * * * 

NJ ......................... White Swan Cleaners/Sun Cleaners Area Ground Water Contamination .................................. Wall Township 

* * * * * * * 

WV ........................ Ravenswood PCE Ground Water Plume ..................................................................................... Ravenswood 

* * * * * * * 

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be ≤ 28.50). 

56956 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 184 / Thursday, September 23, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

C = Sites on Construction Completion list. 

S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score). 

P = Sites with partial deletion(s). 

[FR Doc. 04–21388 Filed 9–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 1, 27, 74, 90 and 101 

[WT Docket No. 01–319; DA 04–2591] 

Review of Quiet Zones Application 

Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register of June 7, 2004, a document in 

the Quiet Zones proceeding, WT Docket 

No. 01–319, which incorrectly indicated 

that a new or modified information 

collection exists that requires approval 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’), and contained an 

incorrect DATES section. This document 

corrects the effective date.

DATES: Effective June 7, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Linda C. Chang, Federal 

Communications Commission, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th 

St., Washington, DC 20554, (202) 418–

0620.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FCC 

published a document in the Federal 

Register of June 7, 2004, (69 FR 17946) 

regarding the adoption of changes to 

rules relating to areas known as ‘‘Quiet 

Zones.’’ In FR Doc. 04–7799, published 

in the Federal Register of June 7, 2004, 

the document incorrectly indicated that 

a new or modified information 

collection exists that requires approval 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (‘‘OMB’’), and contained an 

incorrect DATES section. This document 

corrects the effective date.

Dated: September 9, 2004. 

Linda C. Chang, 

Associate Division Chief, Mobility Division.

[FR Doc. 04–20785 Filed 9–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[ET Docket No. 04–295; FCC 04–187] 

Communications Assistance for Law 

Enforcement Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Declaratory ruling.

SUMMARY: This document issues a 

Declaratory Ruling to clarify that 

commercial wireless ‘‘push-to-talk’’

services continue to be subject to the 

1994 Communications Assistance for 

Law Enforcement Act (‘‘CALEA’’), 

regardless of the technologies that 

Commercial Mobile Radio Services 

(‘‘CMRS’’) providers choose to apply in 

offering them. We issue this ruling 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’’).

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 23, 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 

Declaratory Ruling, 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. 

Summary of the Declaratory Ruling 

1. Law Enforcement asserts that an 

increasing number of wireless carriers 

offer push-to-talk services this service 

without admitting that they have related 

CALEA obligations. We clarify that 

CMRS carrier offerings of push-to-talk 

service that are offered in conjunction 

with interconnected service to the 

public switched telephone network 

(‘‘PSTN’’), but may use different 

technologies, are subject to CALEA 

requirements. 

2. The Second Report and Order

(Second R&O) in CC Docket No. 97–213, 

64 FR 55164, October 12, 1999, 

addressed the dichotomy between pushto-talk ‘‘dispatch’’ services that are 

interconnected to the PSTN and those 

that are not. The Commission focused 

on this difference in the context of first 

concluding that CMRS providers should 

be considered telecommunications 

carriers for the purposes of CALEA. The 

Commission found that § 102(8)(B)(i) of 

CALEA, defining ‘‘telecommunications 

carrier’’ as including ‘‘a person or entity 

engaged in providing commercial 

mobile service (as defined in section 

332(d) of the [Communications Act])’’

requires that conclusion, See 

Communications Assistance for Law 

Enforcement Act, CC Docket No. 97–

213, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC 

Rcd 7105 (2000), 64 FR 55164, October 

12, 1999, The Commission further 

recognized that the definition of 

commercial mobile service requires 

interconnected service. Thus, if services 

such as ‘‘traditional’’ Specialized 

Mobile Radio provide interconnection 

to the PSTN, the Commission 

determined that they satisfy the 

definition of CMRS and thus, are subject 

to CALEA. The Commission further 

found the same definitional approach 

holds for push-to-talk ‘‘dispatch’’

service, because if it is offered as an 

interconnected service, ‘‘it is a switched 

service functionally equivalent to a 

combination of speed dialing and 

conference calling.’’ If the push-to-talk 

‘‘dispatch’’ service otherwise does not 

interconnect to PSTN, the Commission 

found that it is not subject to CALEA. 

3. We find that this approach 

continues to be applicable to CMRS 

offered push-to-talk services that may 

use different technologies, such as a 

packet mode network based on more 

advanced wireless protocols. The 

Commission noted in the Second R&O

that CALEA is technology neutral, and 

‘‘[t]hus, the choice of technology that a 

carrier makes when offering common 

carrier services does not change its 

obligations under CALEA.’’ We find that 

whether a CMRS carrier’s push-to-talk 

service offering is subject to CALEA 

depends on the regulatory definition 

and functional characteristics of that 

service and not on the particular