26802 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules

C. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

‘‘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.

The EPA interprets Executive Order

13045 as applying only to those

regulatory actions that are based on

health or safety risks, such that the

analysis required under section 5–501 of

the Order has the potential to influence

the regulation. This proposed rule is not

subject to Executive Order 13045

because it approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in

a separately identified section of the

preamble to the rule, a description of

the extent of EPA’s prior consultation

with representatives of affected tribal

governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ‘‘to provide

meaningful and timely input in the

development of regulatory policies on

matters that significantly or uniquely

affect their communities.’’

Today’s rule does not significantly or

uniquely affect the communities of

Indian tribal governments. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 600 et seq., 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-forprofit enterprises, and small

governmental jurisdictions. This

proposed 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 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 Act, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The Act

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds. See

Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427

U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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 costs 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.

The 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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Carl E. Edlund,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6

[FR Doc. 00–11566 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6601–2]

Montana: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to grant

Final authorization to the hazardous

waste program changes submitted by

Montana. In the ‘‘Rules’’ section of this

Federal Register, we are authorizing the

State’s program changes as an

immediate final rule without a prior

proposed rule because we believe this

action as not controversial. Unless we

get written comments opposing this

authorization during the comment

period, the immediate final rule will

become effective and the Agency will

not take further action on this proposal.

If we receive comments that oppose this

action, we will publish a document in

the Federal Register withdrawing this

rule before it takes effect. EPA will

address public comments in a later final

rule based on this proposal. EPA may

not provide further opportunity for

comment. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action must do so

at this time.

DATES: We must receive your comments

by June 23, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

Kris Shurr, 8P–HW, U.S. EPA, Region

VIII, 999 18th St, Ste 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139. You can view and copy

Montana’s application at the following

addresses: Air and Waste Management

Bureau, Permitting and Compliance

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 9, 2000 / Proposed Rules 26803

Division, Montana Department of

Environmental Quality, Metcalf

Building, 1520 East Sixth Ave., Helena,

Montana 59620, Phone: 406/444–1430;

and U.S. EPA Region VIII, Montana

Office, 301 S. Park, Federal Building,

Helena, MT 59626, Phone: 406/441–

1130 ext 239.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

Finke, Waste and Toxics Team Leader,

U.S. EPA, 301 S. Park, Drawer 10096,

Helena, MT 59626, Phone: (406) 441–

1130 ext 239, or Kris Shurr, EPA Region

VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,

Colorado 80202–2466, phone number:

(303) 312–6139.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

additional information, please see the

immediate final rule published in the

‘‘Rules’’ section of this Federal Register.

Dated: April 28, 2000.

Jack W. McGraw,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 00–11422 Filed 5–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6602–9]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan; National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of intent to delete the

Chemform, Inc. Site from the National

Priorities List (NPL); request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Region 4, announces its

intent to delete the Chemform, Inc.

Superfund Site in Pompano Beach,

Broward County, Florida, from the

National Priorities List (NPL) and

requests public comment on this

proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 to the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP),

which EPA promulgated pursuant to

section 105 of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the

Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (FDEP) have determined that

all appropriate response actions under

CERCLA have been implemented and

that no further response action is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and FDEP

have determined that the response

actions conducted at the Site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

DATES: Comments on the proposed

deletion from the NPL should be

submitted no later than June 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Mr. Jamey Watt, Remedial Project

Manager, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street,

S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303–3104.

Comprehensive information on this

Site is available through the EPA Region

4 public docket, which is located at

EPA’s Region 4 office and is available

for viewing by appointment from 8:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding holidays. Requests for

appointments or copies of the

background information from the

regional public docket should be

directed to the EPA Region 4 docket

office.

The address for the regional docket

office is: Record Center, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth

Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–

3104, Phone: (404) 562–9530.

Background information from the

regional public docket also is available

for viewing at the Site information

repository located at: Broward County

Main Library, Government Documents,

100 South Andrews Avenue, N.E., Fort

Lauderdale, Florida 33301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jamey Watt, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street

S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–3104,

(404) 562–8920.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

III. Deletion Procedures

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

I. Introduction

EPA, Region 4, announces its intent to

delete the Chemform, Inc. Superfund

Site from the NPL, which constitutes

Appendix B of the NCP, and requests

comments on this proposed deletion.

EPA identifies sites on the NPL that

appear to present a significant risk to

public health, welfare, or the

environment. Sites on the NPL may be

the subject of remedial actions financed

by the Hazardous Substances Superfund

Trust Fund (Fund). Pursuant to 40 CFR

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, any site

deleted from the NPL remains eligible

for Fund-financed remedial actions if

conditions at the site warrant such

action.

EPA will accept comments

concerning this Site for 30 days after

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register.

Section II of this notice explains the

criteria for deleting sites from the NPL.

Section III discusses procedures that

EPA is using for this action. Section IV

discusses how the Site meets the

deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP establishes the criteria that

the Agency uses to delete sites from the

NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR

300.425(e), sites may be deleted from or

recategorized on the NPL when no

further response is appropriate. In

making this determination, EPA will

consider, in consultation with the State,

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

• Responsible parties or other persons

have implemented all appropriate

response actions required; or

• All appropriate Fund-financed

responses under CERCLA have been

implemented, and no further response

action by responsible parties is

appropriate; or

• The remedial investigation has

shown that the release poses no

significant threat to public health or the

environment and, therefore, taking of

remedial measures is not appropriate.

CERCLA Section 121 (c), 42 U.S.C.

9621 (c), provides that if a site is deleted

from the NPL where hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

remain at the site above levels that

allow for unlimited use and unrestricted

exposure, EPA’s policy is that a

subsequent review of the site will be

conducted at least every five years after

the initiation of the remedial action at

the site to ensure that the site remains

protective of public health and the

environment. The OU1 ROD signed on

September 22, 1992, as amended by the

Explanation of Significant Differences

(ESD) signed on April 2, 1999, calls for

such Five-Year Review events at the

Site. Each Five-Year Review will

examine the institutional controls

identified at the Site and allow for

additional ground water monitoring if

necessary. Five-Year Reviews will

continue until Site ground water meets

maximum concentration limits (MCLs).

The OU2 ROD selected remedy which

addressed soil contamination did not

require Five-Year Review events.

Through soil excavation and removal

actions, no hazardous substances

remained in on-site soils above healthbased levels. If new information

becomes available that indicates a need

for further action, EPA may initiate a

remedial action. Whenever there is a

significant release from a site deleted

from the NPL, the site may be restored

to the NPL without the application of

the Hazard Ranking System.