Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5435

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).

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 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.

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.

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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 will submit 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).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by April 4, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compound.

Dated: January 7, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (270)(i)(B) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(270) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 207, amended on September

15, 1999.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–2183 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6532–7]

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 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 10 new

sites to the NPL; all to the General

Superfund Section of the NPL.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for

this amendment to the NCP March 6,

2000.

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

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)

5436 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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. Availability of Information to the Public

A. Can 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 Docket?

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

E. How Can 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. Executive Order 12866

A. What is Executive Order 12866?

B. Is this Final 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 Final Rule?

VI. Effects on Small Businesses

A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to this Final Rule?

VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of

the Rule

A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to

Congress and the General Accounting

Office?

B. Could the Effective Date of This Final

Rule Change?

C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of

This Rule to Change?

VIII. 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

Final Rule?

IX. Executive Order 12898

A. What is Executive Order 12898?

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

This Final Rule?

X. Executive Order 13045

A. What is Executive Order 13045?

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

XII. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are The Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Final Rule?

XIII. Executive Order 13084

What is Executive Order 13084 and is it

Applicable to this Final 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

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.

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,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5437

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 October 22,

1999 (64 FR 56966).

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

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 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 January 19, 2000, the Agency

has deleted 206 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 January 19, 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.

5438 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Of the 206 sites that have been

deleted from the NPL, 197 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

January 19, 2000, there are a total of 676

sites on the CCL. This total includes the

197 deleted sites. For the most up-todate information on the CCL, see EPA’s

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

superfund.

II. Availability of Information to the

Public

A. Can 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.

B. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Headquarters Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains, for each proposed 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—January 2000.’’

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 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

Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA

CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway

#1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, 703/603–8917.

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.

David Bennett, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,

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

Avenue, Mail Stop ECL–115, Seattle,

WA 98101; 206/553–2103.

E. How Can 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

site information category) or by

contacting the Superfund Docket (see

contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Addition to the NPL

This final rule adds 10 sites to the

NPL; all to the General Superfund

Section of the NPL. Table 1 presents the

10 sites in the General Superfund

Section. Sites in the table are arranged

alphabetically by State.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION

State Site name City/

county

FL ........... Trans Circuit, Inc ..... Lake Park

LA ........... Marion Pressure

Treating.

Marion

NY .......... Jackson Steel .......... Mineola/

North

Hempstead

NY .......... Lawrence Aviation

Industries, Inc.

Port Jefferson

Station

NY .......... Peter Cooper Corporation

(Markhams).

Dayton

PA .......... Old Wilmington

Road Ground

Water Contamination.

Sadsburyville

PR .......... Scorpio Recycling,

Inc.

Candeleria Ward

RI ............ Centredale Manor

Restoration

Project.

North

Providence

SC .......... Macalloy Corporation.North

Charleston

UT .......... Jacobs Smelter ....... Stockton

Number of Sites Added to the General

Superfund Section: 10.

B. Status of NPL

With the 10 new sites added to the

NPL in today’s final rule; the NPL now

contains 1,226 final sites; 1,067 in the

General Superfund Section and 159 in

the Federal Facilities Section. With a

separate rule (published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register) proposing to

add 8 new sites to the NPL, there are

now 55 sites proposed and awaiting

final agency action, 48 in the General

Superfund Section and 7 in the Federal

Facilities Section. Final and proposed

sites now total 1,281. (These numbers

reflect the status of sites as of January

19, 2000. Sites deletions may affect

these numbers at time of publication in

the Federal Register.)

C. What Did EPA Do With the Public

Comments It Received?

EPA reviewed all comments received

on the sites in this rule. The following

sites were proposed on October 22, 1999

(64 FR 56992): Trans Circuit, Inc.,

Marion Pressure Treating, Jackson Steel,

Lawrence Aviation Industries, Scorpio

Recycling, Inc., Centredale Manor

Restoration Project, and Macalloy

Corporation. The Old Wilmington Road

Ground Water Contamination site and

the Jacobs Smelter site were proposed

on July 22, 1999 (64 FR 39886). The

Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams)

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5439

site was proposed on April 23, 1999 (64

FR 19968).

For Trans Circuit, Inc., Marion

Pressure Treating, Jackson Steel,

Lawrence Aviation Industries, Scorpio

Recycling, Inc., Centredale Manor

Restoration Project, and Macalloy

Corporation, EPA received no comments

affecting the HRS scoring of these sites

and therefore, EPA is placing them on

the final NPL at this time.

EPA responded to all relevant

comments received on the other sites.

EPA’s responses to site-specific public

comments are addressed in the

‘‘Support Document for the Revised

National Priorities List Final Rule—

January 2000.’’

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

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 Final 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 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

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. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. While this rule revises 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 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

5440 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 rule, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Therefore, this regulation does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Possible Changes to the Effective

Date of the Rule

A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to

Congress and the General Accounting

Office?

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 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).

B. 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.

C. What Could Cause the Effective Date

of This Rule to Change?

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.

VIII. 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

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

B. 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.

IX. 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 Final Rule?

No. While this rule revises the NPL,

no action will result from this rule that

will have disproportionately high and

adverse human health and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 5441

environmental effects on any segment of

the population.

X. 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 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.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it is not an economically

significant rule as defined by E.O.

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.

XI. 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 Final 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.

XII. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are The Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Final Rule?

Under Executive Order 12875, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute and that creates a

mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If

EPA complies by consulting, Executive

Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to

the Office of Management and Budget a

description of the extent of EPA’s prior

consultation with representatives of

affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their

concerns, any written communications

from the governments, and a statement

supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order

12875 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of

State, local and tribal governments ‘‘to

provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory proposals

containing significant unfunded

mandates.’’

This rule does not create a mandate

on State, local or tribal governments.

The rule does not impose any

enforceable duties on these entities.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do

not apply to this rule.

On August 4, 1999, President Clinton

issued a new executive order on

federalism, Executive Order 13132, [64

FR 43255 (August 10, 1999),] which will

take effect on November 2, 1999. In the

interim, the current Executive Order

12612 [52 FR 41685 (October 30, 1987),]

on federalism still applies. This rule

will not have a substantial direct effect

on 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 12612. This rule will

not result in the imposition of any

additional requirements on any State,

local governments or other political

subdivisions within any State.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 6(c) of Executive Order 12612 do

not apply to this rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13084

What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It

Applicable to this Final 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 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

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

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 record keeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

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,

5442 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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)

*****

FL ........... Trans Circuit, Inc. ....................................... Lake Park.

*****

LA ........... Marion Pressure Treating .......................... Marion.

*****

NY .......... Jackson Steel ............................................. Mineola/North Hempstead.

*****

NY .......... Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc. ............. Port Jefferson Station.

*****

NY .......... Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) ..... Winslow Township.

*****

PA .......... Old Wilmington Road Ground Water Contamination.Sadsburyville.

*****

PR .......... Scorpio Recycling, Inc. .............................. Candeleria Ward.

*****

RI ........... Centredale Manor Restoration Project ...... North Providence.

 

SC .......... Macalloy Corporation ................................. North Charleston.

** ***

UT .......... Jacobs Smelter .......................................... Stockton.

*****

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

28.50).

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. 00–2474 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 761

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs),

Manufacturing, Processing,

Distribution in Commerce, and Use

Prohibitions

CFR Correction

In Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 700 to 789, revised as

of July 1, 1999, page 537, part 761,

§ 761.30 is corrected by reinstating

paragraph (j)(4) to read as follows:

§ 761.30 Authorizations.

* * * * *

(j) * * *

(4) No person may manufacture,

process, or distribute in commerce PCBs

for research and development unless

they have been granted an exemption to

do so under TSCA section 6(e)(3)(B).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–55501 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505–01–D

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 991223349–9349–01; I.D.

122199A]

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and

Aleutian Islands Area; Interim Harvest

Specifications for Groundfish;

Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Correction.

SUMMARY: NMFS is correcting the

Interim 2000 Harvest Specifications for

groundfish of the Bering Sea and