Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30489

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6603–2]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 32

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 14 new sites to the NPL.

All of the sites are being proposed to the

General Superfund Section of the NPL.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these

proposed listings must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before July 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail

original and three copies of comments

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency;

CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code

5201G); 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.

Environmental Protection Agency;

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;

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

C. Amendments to Proposed Site Listings

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?

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 of hazardous

substances. 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,

pollutants, or contaminants under

CERCLA. 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 (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

30490 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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. 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. See Report of the Senate

Committee on Environment and Public

Works, Senate Rep. No. 96–848, 96th

Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659

(September 8, 1983).

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 generally is not

the lead agency at Federal Facilities

Section sites, and its role at such sites

is accordingly 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 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) Each State

may designate a single site as its top

priority to be listed on the NPL,

regardless of the HRS score. This

mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40

CFR 300.425(c)(2) requires that, to the

extent practicable, the NPL include

within the 100 highest priorities, one

facility designated by each State

representing the greatest danger to

public health, welfare, or the

environment among known facilities in

the State (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B));

(3) The third mechanism for listing,

included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be

listed regardless of their 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 February 4,

2000 (65 FR 5435).

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 remedy the

releases, including enforcement action

under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

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 contamination from

that area 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 ‘‘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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30491

threat posed; the boundaries of the

release need not be exactly defined.

Moreover, it generally is impossible to

discover the full extent of where the

contamination ‘‘has come to be located’’

before all necessary studies and

remedial work are completed at a site.

Indeed, the boundaries of the

contamination can be expected to

change over time. Thus, in most cases,

it may be impossible to describe the

boundaries of a release with absolute

certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing

does not assign liability to any party or

to the owner of any specific property.

Thus, if a party does not believe it is

liable for releases on discrete parcels of

property, supporting information can be

submitted to the Agency at any time

after a party receives notice it is a

potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not

be amended as further research reveals

more information about the location of

the contamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the

NPL?

EPA may delete sites from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate under Superfund, as

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e). This section also provides

that EPA shall consult with states on

proposed deletions and shall consider

whether any of the following criteria

have been met: (i) Responsible parties or

other persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed

response has been implemented and no

further response action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown the release poses no significant

threat to public health or the

environment, and taking of remedial

measures is not appropriate. As of April

27, 2000, the Agency has deleted 212

sites from the NPL.

H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted

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 April 27, 2000, EPA has

deleted portions of 18 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.

Of the 212 sites that have been

deleted from the NPL, 203 sites were

deleted because they have been cleaned

up (the other 9 sites were deleted based

on deferral to other authorities and are

not considered cleaned up). As of April

27, 2000, there are a total of 685 sites

on the CCL. This total includes the 212

deleted sites. For the most up-to-date

information on the CCL, see EPA’s

Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/

superfund.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. Can I Review the Documents

Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

Yes, documents that form the basis for

EPA’s evaluation and scoring of the sites

in this rule are contained in dockets

located both at EPA Headquarters in

Washington, DC and in the Regional

offices.

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by

appointment only, in the Headquarters

or the Regional dockets after the

appearance of this proposed rule. The

hours of operation for the Headquarters

docket are from 9 a.m. to 4 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:

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.

EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal

Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202,

703/603–9232. (Please note this is a

visiting address only. Mail comments to

EPA Headquarters as detailed at the

beginning of this preamble.)

The contact information for the

Regional dockets is as follows:

Barbara Callahan, Region 1 (CT, ME,

MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Records

Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress

Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA

02114–2023; 617/918–1356.

Ben Conetta, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI),

U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York,

NY 10007–1866; 212/637–4435.

Dawn Shellenberger (GCI), Region 3

(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,

Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode

3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/

814–5364.

Joellen O’Neill, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA,

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

Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta,

GA 30303; 404/562–8127.

Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S.

EPA, Records Center, Waste

Management Division 7–J, Metcalfe

Federal Building, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/

886–7570.

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.

Carole Long, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE),

U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street,

Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551–7224.

David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND,

SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th

Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR–SA,

Denver, CO 80202–2466; 303/312–

6757.

Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI,

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

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/

744–2343.

Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,

WA), U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th

Avenue, Mail Stop ECL–110, Seattle,

WA 98101; 206/553–6699.

You may also request copies from

EPA Headquarters or the Regional

dockets. An informal request, rather

than a formal written request under the

Freedom of Information Act, should be

the ordinary procedure for obtaining

copies of any of these documents.

C. What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Headquarters

Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains: HRS score sheets for the

proposed site; a Documentation Record

for the site describing the information

used to compute the score; information

for any site affected by particular

statutory requirements or EPA listing

policies; and a list of documents

referenced in the Documentation

Record.

D. What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Regional Dockets?

The Regional dockets for this rule

contain all of the information in the

Headquarters docket, plus, the actual

reference documents containing the data

principally relied upon and cited by

EPA in calculating or evaluating the

HRS score for the sites. These reference

documents are available only in the

Regional dockets.

30492 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

Comments must be submitted to EPA

Headquarters as detailed at the

beginning of this preamble in the

ADDRESSES section. Please note that the

addresses differ according to method of

delivery. There are two different

addresses that depend on whether

comments are sent by express mail or by

postal mail.

F. What Happens to My Comments?

EPA considers all comments received

during the comment period. Significant

comments will be addressed in a

support document that EPA will publish

concurrently with the Federal Register

document if, and when, the site is listed

on the NPL.

G. What Should I Consider When

Preparing My Comments?

Comments that include complex or

voluminous reports, or materials

prepared for purposes other than HRS

scoring, should point out the specific

information that EPA should consider

and how it affects individual HRS factor

values or other listing criteria

(Northside Sanitary Landfill v. Thomas,

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

will not address voluminous comments

that are not specifically cited by page

number and referenced to the HRS or

other listing criteria. EPA will not

address comments unless they indicate

which component of the HRS

documentation record or what

particular point in EPA’s stated

eligibility criteria is at issue.

H. Can I Submit Comments After the

Public Comment Period Is Over?

Generally, EPA will not respond to

late comments. EPA can only guarantee

that it will consider those comments

postmarked by the close of the formal

comment period. EPA has a policy of

not delaying a final listing decision

solely to accommodate consideration of

late comments.

I. Can I View Public Comments

Submitted by Others?

During the comment period,

comments are placed in the

Headquarters docket and are available to

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

complete set of comments will be

available for viewing in the Regional

docket approximately one week after the

formal comment period closes.

J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding

Sites Not Currently Proposed to the

NPL?

In certain instances, interested parties

have written to EPA concerning sites

which were not at that time proposed to

the NPL. If those sites are later proposed

to the NPL, parties should review their

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,

resubmit those concerns for

consideration during the formal

comment period. Site-specific

correspondence received prior to the

period of formal proposal and comment

will not generally be included in the

docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

With today’s proposed rule, EPA is

proposing to add 14 new sites to the

NPL; all to the General Superfund

Section of the NPL. (However, it should

be noted that the Lower Darby Creek

Area site in the Delaware and

Philadelphia Counties of Pennsylvania,

is located in part on federally owned

land. There is no separate category for

mixed-ownership sites, and the facts at

this site are such that EPA believes it

more appropriate to propose the site in

the General Superfund Section of the

NPL. In particular, the sources of

contamination on the Federal portion of

the site are few compared to the sources

on private land, and contamination is

not the result of the U.S. Department of

Interior, which currently manages the

Federal portion of the site. EPA

emphasizes that the designation of a site

in the Federal Facility Section or the

General Superfund Section of the NPL

has no legal significance and is purely

informational in nature.)

The sites in this proposed rulemaking

are being proposed based on HRS scores

of 28.50 or above. The sites are

presented in Table 1 which follows this

preamble.

B. Status of NPL

A final rule published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register finalizes 7 sites

to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of 1,227

final sites; 1,068 in the General

Superfund Section and 159 in the

Federal Facilities Section. With this

proposal of 14 new sites, there are now

62 sites proposed and awaiting final

agency action, 55 in the General

Superfund Section and 7 in the Federal

Facilities Section. Final and proposed

sites now total 1,289. (These numbers

reflect the status of sites as of April 27,

2000. Site deletions occurring after this

date may affect these numbers at time of

publication in the Federal Register.)

C. Amendments to Proposed Site

Listings

In today’s proposed rule, EPA is also

amending the proposed rules for two

sites proposed to the NPL; the Indian

Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville site

located in Lawrenceville, Illinois and

the Smeltertown site in Salida,

Colorado.

The Indian Refinery site was

proposed to the NPL on July 28, 1998

(63 FR 40247) and EPA is amending the

HRS documentation record by providing

an addendum containing a revised

rationale to the CERCLA petroleum

exclusion. This addendum is provided

in the EPA Headquarters and Region 5

Dockets.

The Smeltertown site was proposed to

the NPL on February 7, 1992 (57 FR

4824) and EPA is amending the HRS

documentation record by providing an

addendum that excludes the CoZinCo

facility (Operable Unit 3) from the scope

of the listing. In accordance with EPA

policy on deferral to the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

program (See e.g., 51 FR 21059 (June 10,

1986)), the Agency has deferred the

CoZinCo facility to the Colorado

Hazardous Waste Act (CHWA) program,

which is an authorized State program

under the RCRA. This addendum is

provided in the EPA HQ and Region 8

dockets.

EPA will accept comments on both

sites that are relevant to the information

provided in the addendums to the

documentation records for these

proposals only. (See ‘‘Dates’’ section of

this preamble for end date of the

comment period.) EPA is not accepting

comments on other aspects of the

proposals that are not affected by the

addendums. Please note that EPA has

already accepted comments on the

original HRS documentation records at

the time the sites were proposed to the

NPL.

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

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

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30493

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.

B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. 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.

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed

Rule?

No, EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

by the private sector in any one year.

This rule will not impose any federal

intergovernmental mandate because it

imposes no enforceable duty upon State,

tribal or local governments. Listing a

site on the NPL does not itself impose

any costs. Listing does not mean that

EPA necessarily will undertake

remedial action. Nor does listing require

any action by a private party or

determine liability for response costs.

Costs that arise out of site responses

result from site-specific decisions

regarding what actions to take, not

directly from the act of listing a site on

the NPL.

For the same reasons, EPA also has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. In addition, as discussed

above, the private sector is not expected

to incur costs exceeding $100 million.

EPA has fulfilled the requirement for

analysis under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

A. 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.

B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for This Rule?

No. While this rule proposes to revise

the NPL, an NPL revision is not a

typical regulatory change since it does

not automatically impose costs. As

stated above, adding sites to the NPL

does not in itself require any action by

any party, nor does it determine the

liability of any party for the cost of

cleanup at the site. Further, no

identifiable groups are affected as a

whole. As a consequence, impacts on

any group are hard to predict. A site’s

inclusion on the NPL could increase the

likelihood of adverse impacts on

responsible parties (in the form of

cleanup costs), but at this time EPA

cannot identify the potentially affected

businesses or estimate the number of

small businesses that might also be

affected.

The Agency does expect that placing

the sites in this proposed rule on the

NPL could significantly affect certain

industries, or firms within industries,

that have caused a proportionately high

percentage of waste site problems.

However, EPA does not expect the

listing of these sites to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would

occur only through enforcement and

cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes

at its discretion on a site-by-site basis.

EPA considers many factors when

determining enforcement actions,

including not only a firm’s contribution

to the problem, but also its ability to

pay. The impacts (from cost recovery)

on small governments and nonprofit

organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby

certify that this proposed rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore, this

proposed regulation does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

VII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

A. What Is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

30494 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

B. Does the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply

to This Proposed Rule?

No. This proposed rulemaking does

not involve technical standards.

Therefore, EPA did not consider the use

of any voluntary consensus standards.

VIII. Executive Order 12898

A. What Is Executive Order 12898?

Under Executive Order 12898,

‘‘Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations,’’ as well as through EPA’s

April 1995, ‘‘Environmental Justice

Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice

Task Force Action Agenda Report,’’ and

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken

to incorporate environmental justice

into its policies and programs. EPA is

committed to addressing environmental

justice concerns, and is assuming a

leadership role in environmental justice

initiatives to enhance environmental

quality for all residents of the United

States. The Agency’s goals are to ensure

that no segment of the population,

regardless of race, color, national origin,

or income, bears disproportionately

high and adverse human health and

environmental effects as a result of

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities,

and all people live in clean and

sustainable communities.

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

This Proposed Rule?

No. While this rule proposes to revise

the NPL, no action will result from this

proposal that will have

disproportionately high and adverse

human health and environmental effects

on any segment of the population.

IX. Executive Order 13045

A. 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.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Proposed Rule?

This proposed rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045 because it is not

an economically significant rule as

defined by Executive Order 12866, and

because the Agency does not have

reason to believe the environmental

health or safety risks addressed by this

proposed rule present a

disproportionate risk to children.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. 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.

The information collection requirements

related to this action have already been

approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA

under OMB control number 2070–0012

(EPA ICR No. 574).

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

No. 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.

XI. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are the Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Proposed Rule?

Executive Order 13132, entitled

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This proposed rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

XII. Executive Order 13084

What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It

Applicable to This Proposed Rule?

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 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 on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

This proposed rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments because it does not

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 30495

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed rule.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 32, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county

AL ................. Capitol City Plume ........................................................................................................ Montgomery.

CT ................ Scovill Industrial Landfill ................................................................................................ Waterbury.

FL ................. Southern Solvents, Inc. ................................................................................................. Tampa.

LA ................. Talen’s Landing Bulk Plant ........................................................................................... Grand Cheniere.

MS ................ Davis Timber Company ................................................................................................ Hattiesburg.

MT ................ Lockwood Solvent Ground Water Plume ...................................................................... Billings.

NH ................ Mohawk Tannery ........................................................................................................... Nashua.

NM ................ Molycorp, Inc ................................................................................................................. Questa.

NY ................ Hudson Technologies, Inc. ........................................................................................... Hillburn.

OK ................ Imperial Refining Company ........................................................................................... Ardmore.

PA ................ Lower Darby Creek Area .............................................................................................. Delaware and Philadelphia Counties.

SD ................ Gilt Edge Mine .............................................................................................................. Lead.

TX ................. Palmer Barge Line ........................................................................................................ Port Arthur.

WA ............... Hamilton/Labree Roads Ground Water Contamination ................................................ Chehalis.

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 14.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Dated: May 3, 2000.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 00–11563 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P