Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5465

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

28, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–2415 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–C

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

36 CFR Parts 217 and 219

National Forest System Land and

Resource Management Planning

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: On October 5, 1999, the

Forest Service published a proposed

rule to guide land and resource

management planning on national

forests and grasslands (64 FR 54074).

The agency extended the public

comment period for this proposed rule,

which is scheduled to end on February

3, 2000 (64 FR 70204). In response to

Congressional requests and the need to

provide the public more time to review

and evaluate the proposed regulations,

the Forest Service is extending the

public comment period until February

10, 2000.

DATES: Comments must be submitted in

writing and must be received by

February 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments on

the proposed planning rule to the

CAET-USDA Team, Attn. Planning

Rule, Forest Service, USDA, 200 East

Broadway, Room 103, Post Office Box

7669, Missoula, MT 59807; or via email

to planreg/wolcaet@fs.fed.us; or via

facsimile to (406) 329–3021.

Comments, including names and

addresses when provided, are subject to

public inspection and copying. The

public may inspect comments received

on this proposed rule in the Office of

Deputy Chief, National Forest Systems,

Third Floor, Southwest Wing, Yates

Building, 14th and Independence Ave.,

SW, Washington, DC between the hours

of 8:30 AM and 4:00 PM.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob

Cunningham, Ecosystem Management

Coordination Staff, telephone: (202)

205–7820.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

Barbara C. Weber,

Acting Associate Chief for Natural Resources.

[FR Doc. 00–2597 Field 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–11–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA236–0204b; FRL–6533–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing revisions to

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP) which concern an emission

offsets exemption for pollution control

projects that are mandated by District,

state, or federal regulation.

The intended effect of this action is to

regulate emissions from stationary

sources of air pollution subject to

District new source review (NSR)

regulation in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). In

the Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, the EPA is approving the

state’s SIP submittal as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

revision and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for this

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received, no further activity is

contemplated. If EPA receives adverse

comments, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and all public comments

received will be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on this

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period. Any

parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Roger Kohn, Permits

Office (AIR–3), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA’s

evaluation report of each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule

revisions are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary

Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section,

2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court,

Monterey CA 93940.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Kohn, Permits Office (AIR–3), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1238).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns Monterey Bay

Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule 207, Review of New or Modified

Sources, submitted to EPA on October

29, 1999 by the California Air Resources

Board. For further information, please

see the information provided in the

direct final action that is located in the

rules section of this Federal Register.

Dated: January 21, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–2471 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 105–0201 FRL–6532–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Kern

County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

The revision concerns the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the Kern

County Air Pollution Control District

(KCAPCD). The revision concerns

KCAPCD Rule 425.1 for the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from

hot mix asphalt paving plants. The

intended effect of proposing approval of

this rule is to regulate emissions of

(NOX) in accordance with the

requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this proposed rule

will incorporate this rule into the

Federally approved SIP. EPA has

evaluated this rule and is proposing to

approve it under provisions of the CAA

regarding EPA actions on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS), and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

5466 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1 KCAPCD retained its designation of

nonattainment and was classified by operation of

law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the

date of enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991).

2EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, Pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

3 ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rule and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule is available

for public inspection at EPA’s Region IX

office during normal business hours.

Copies of the submitted rule are also

available for inspection at the following

locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102) 401 ‘‘M’’, Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘L’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Kern County Air Pollution Control

District, 2700 ‘‘M’’ Street, Suite 302,

Bakersfield, CA 93301

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval

into the California SIP is Kern County

Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD)

Rule 425.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Paving

Plants (Oxides of Nitrogen). Rule 425.1

was submitted by the State of California

to EPA on October 19, 1994.

II. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. The

air quality planning requirements for

the reduction of NOX emissions through

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) are set out in section 182 (f) of

the Clean Air Act.

On November 25, 1992, EPA

published a proposed rule entitled,

‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen

Oxides Supplement to the General

Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990 Implementation of Title I;

Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX supplement)

which describes and provides

preliminary guidance on the

requirements of section 182(f). The NOX

Supplement should be referred to for

further information on the NOX

requirements.

Section 182 (f) of the Clean Air Act

requires States to apply the same

requirements to major stationary sources

of NOX (‘‘major’’ as defined in section

302 and sections 182(c), (d), and (e)) as

are applied to major stationary sources

of volatile organic compound (VOCs), in

moderate or above ozone nonattainment

areas. KCAPCD is classified as serious; 1

therefore this area is subject to the

RACT requirements of section 182(b)(2)

and the November 15, 1992 deadline

cited below.

Section 182(b)(2) requires submittal of

RACT rules for major stationary sources

of VOC (and NOX) emissions (not

covered by a pre-enactment control

technologies guidelines (CTG)

document or a post-enactment CTG

document) by November 15, 1992.

There were no NOX CTGs issued before

enactment and EPA has not issued a

CTG document for any NOX sources

since enactment of the CAA. The RACT

rule covering NOX sources and

submitted as a SIP revision requires

final installation of the actual NOX

controls as expeditiously as practicable,

but no later than May 31, 1995.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for Kern County Air

Pollution Control District (KCAPCD)

Rule 425.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Paving

Plants (Oxides of Nitrogen), adopted by

the KCAPCD on October 13, 1994. The

State of California submitted Rule 425.1

to EPA October 19, 1994. Rule 425.1

was found to be complete on October

21, 1994, pursuant to EPA’s

completeness criteria that are set forth

in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. 2

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. KCAPCD Rule 425.1 specified

exhaust emission standards for NOX,

and was originally adopted as part of

KCAPCD’s effort to achieve the National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone, and in response to the CAA

requirements cited above. The following

is EPA’s evaluation and proposed action

for the rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and Part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR Part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). Among those

provisions is the requirement that a

NOX rule must, at a minimum, provide

for the implementation of RACT for

stationary sources of NOX emissions.

The EPA interpretation of these

requirements, which forms the basis for

today’s action, appears in the NOX

Supplement (57 FR 55620) and various

other EPA policy guidance documents.3

For the purpose of assisting State and

local agencies in developing NOX RACT

rules, EPA prepared the NOX

Supplement to the General Preamble. In

the NOX Supplement, EPA provides

preliminary guidance on how RACT

will be determined for stationary

sources of NOX emissions. While most

of the guidance issued by EPA on what

constitutes RACT for stationary sources

has been directed towards application

for VOC sources, much of the guidance

is also applicable to RACT for stationary

sources for NOX (see section 4.5 of the

NOX Supplement). In addition, pursuant

to section 183(c), EPA is issuing

alternative control technique documents

(ACTs), that identify alternative controls

for all categories of stationary sources of

NOX. The ACT documents will provide

information on control technology for

stationary sources that emit or have the

potential to emit 25 tons per year or

more of NOX. However, the ACTs will

not establish a presumptive norm for

what is considered RACT for stationary

sources of NOX.

In addition, the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) is developing a

guidance document entitled, ‘‘California

Clean Air Act Guidance, Determination

of Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for Institutional,

Industrial and Commercial Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters,’’

July 18, 1991. EPA has used CARB’s

RACT Determination, dated July 18,

1991, in evaluating Rule 425.1 for

consistency with the CAA’s RACT

requirements. In general, EPA uses the

guidance documents cited above, as

well as other relevant and applicable

guidance documents, to ensure that

submitted NOX RACT rules meet

Federal RACT requirements and are

fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

There is currently no version of Kern

County Air Pollution Control District

Rule 425.1, Hot Mix Asphalt Paving

Plants (Oxides of Nitrogen), in the SIP.

Submitted Rule 425 includes the

following provisions:

• General provisions including

applicability, exemptions, and

definitions.

• Exhaust emmissions standards for

oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5467

• Compliance and monitoring

requirements including compliance

schedule, reporting requirements,

monitoring and record keeping, and test

methods.

Rules submitted to EPA for approval

as revisions to the SIP must be fully

enforceable, must maintain or

strengthen the SIP and must conform

with EPA policy in order to be approved

by EPA. When reviewing rules for SIP

approvability, EPA evaluates

enforceability elements such as test

methods, record keeping, and

compliance testing in addition to RACT

guidance regarding emission limits.

Rule 425.1 strengthens the SIP through

the addition of enforceable measures

such as emissions limits, record

keeping, test methods, definitions, and

more stringent compliance testing.

Because there is no existing rule in the

SIP, the incorporation of Rule 425.1 into

the SIP would decrease the NOX

emissions allowed by the SIP. A more

detailed discussion of the sources

controlled, the controls required, and

justification for why these controls

represent RACT can be found in the

Technical Support Document (TSD),

dated December 1, 1999, which is

available from the U.S. EPA, Region IX

office.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is consistent

with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA

policy. Therefore, Kern County Air

Pollution Control District Rule 425.1 is

being proposed for approval under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA is meeting

the requirements of section 110(a),

section 182(b)(2), section 182(f) and the

NOX Supplement to the General

Preamble.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

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

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 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 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

C. 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 E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does

not involve decisions intended to

mitigate environmental health or safety

risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies and matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (FRA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

5468 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costss to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen ozone, Reporting and record

keeping requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: January 21, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–02476 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6532–6]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 31

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), 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 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 proposed rule

proposes to add 8 new sites to the NPL.

Six of the sites are being proposed to the

General Superfund Section of the NPL

and 2 of the sites are being proposed to

the Federal Facilities Section.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these

proposed listings must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before April 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail

original and three copies of comments

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA;

CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code

5201G); Ariel Rios Building; 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington,

DC 20460.

By Express Mail: Send original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway; Crystal Gateway #1, First

Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format

only may be mailed directly to

superfund.docket@epa.gov. E-mailed

comments must be followed up by an

original and three copies sent by mail or

express mail.

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

Center, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Ariel Rios Building; 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. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

I. What is the Construction Completion List

(CCL)?

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. Can 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. Can I Submit Comments After the

Public Comment Period Is Over?

I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted

by Others?

J. Can 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

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What is Executive Order 12866?

B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (UMRA)?

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed

Rule?

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for This Rule?

VII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

A. What is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

B. Does the National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act Apply to This

Proposed Rule?

VIII. Executive Order 12898

A. What is Executive Order 12898?

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

this Proposed Rule?

IX. Executive Order 13045

A. What is Executive Order 13045?

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

this Proposed Rule?

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to this Proposed Rule?

XI. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are The Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Proposed Rule?

XII. Executive Order 13084

What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It

Applicable to this Proposed Rule?