Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58225

connection with otherwise covered

orthodontia directly related to the

surgical correction of a cleft palate

anomaly.

* * * * *

Dated: September 18, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–24495 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6877–4]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule; notice of vacatur.

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. On October 22, 1999, the

EPA promulgated a final rule adding the

Georgia-Pacific Corporation Hardwood

Sawmill site, located in Plymouth,

North Carolina, to the NPL. EPA today

is announcing the vacatur of the listing

of the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood

Sawmill site to the NPL and is

amending the NPL at 40 CFR part 300,

appendix B, to delete the site from the

NPL in accordance with an order issued

by the United States Court of Appeals

for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.

Cir.) in Georgia-Pacific Corporation v.

EPA (No. 00–1014).

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for

this amendment to the NCP is

September 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the

Headquarters and regional docket, as

well as further details on the contents of

these dockets, section II, ‘‘Availability of

Information to the Public,’’ in the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION portion of

this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Vandermer, phone (703) 603–

9018, 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

contact the Superfund Hotline, phone

(800) 424–9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The court

order vacating the listing determination

will be added to final docket NPL–

FRU26 (10/21/99).

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Availability of Information to the Public

III. Contents of This Final Rule

IV. Good Cause Exemption From Notice and

Comment Rulemaking

V. Administrative Assessments

I. Background

On October 22, 1999, the EPA

promulgated a final rule adding the

Georgia-Pacific Corporation Hardwood

Sawmill site to the National Priorities

List (NPL) (64 FR 56966). On January

18, 2000, Georgia-Pacific filed a petition

for review of that rule in the United

States Court of Appeals for the District

of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit). EPA

and Georgia-Pacific subsequently filed a

joint motion requesting that the D.C.

Circuit enter a judgment vacating EPA’s

listing decision and an order

suspending further briefing and

argument in the case. The Court granted

the joint motion on August 21, 2000.

Today’s rulemaking formally removes

the Georgia-Pacific Hardwood Sawmill

site from the NPL in accordance with

the D.C. Circuit’s order.

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 site in this

final rule are contained in dockets

located both at EPA Headquarters and in

the regional office in Atlanta, Georgia.

B. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Headquarters Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains 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—

October 1999.’’

C. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Regional Docket?

The regional docket contains 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 site.

These reference documents are available

only in the regional docket.

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. 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 22202, phone (703) 603–

8917.

The contact for the regional docket is

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; phone (404) 562–8127.

Please contact the regional docket for

hours.

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

This rule deletes the Georgia-Pacific

Corporation Hardwood Sawmill site

from the General Superfund Section of

the NPL.

IV. Good Cause Exemption From Notice

and Comment Rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act

generally requires agencies to provide

prior notice and opportunity for public

comment before issuing a final rule (5

U.S.C. 553(b)). Rules are exempt from

this requirement if the issuing agency

finds for good cause that notice and

58226 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

comment are unnecessary (5 U.S.C.

553(b)(3)(B)).

EPA has determined that it is not

necessary to provide prior notice and

opportunity for comment on the rule

amending the NPL to remove the

Georgia-Pacific Corporation Hardwood

Sawmill site from the NPL. The rule is

promulgated in order to comply with

the D.C. Circuit’s order vacating the

listing. The listing is no longer legally

in effect by order of the D.C. Circuit.

Thus, amending the NPL has no legal

impact and only states the current legal

status of the NPL.

For the same reasons stated above,

EPA believes there is good cause for

making the amending regulations

immediately effective. (See 5 U.S.C.

553(d))

V. Administrative Assessments

A. Executive Order 12866

1. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)), the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive order.

The order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

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

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

order.

2. Is This Final Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

B. Unfunded Mandates

1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA)?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before EPA

promulgates a rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments; enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates; and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final

Rule?

No. Today’s action will have no

impact upon State, local, and tribal

governments, or on the private sector.

The amending regulations promulgated

today reflect current law and will result

in no legal impact on public or private

entities.

C. Effect on Small Businesses

1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility

Act?

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

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

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of

1996), whenever an agency is required

to publish a notice of rulemaking for

any proposed or final rule, it must

prepare and make available for public

comment a regulatory flexibility

analysis that describes the effect of the

rule on small entities (i.e., small

businesses, small organizations, and

small governmental jurisdictions).

However, no regulatory flexibility

analysis is required if the head of an

agency certifies the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

SBREFA amended the Regulatory

Flexibility Act to require Federal

agencies to provide a statement of the

factual basis for certifying that a rule

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

2. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. The amending regulations

promulgated today will have no effect

on small entities. This is evidenced by

the fact that the regulations promulgated

today have no legal impact. Today’s rule

only amends the CFR to comply with

the current legal status of the rules.

I hereby certify that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, this regulation does not

require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

D. The Congressional Review Act

1. What Is the Congressional Review

Act?

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.

2. How Does the Congressional Review

Act Apply to This Rule?

Section 808 allows the issuing agency

to make the rule effective sooner than

otherwise provided by the CRA if the

agency makes a good cause finding that

notice and public procedure is

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest. This statement

must be supported by a brief statement.

As stated previously, EPA has made

such a good cause finding, including the

reasons therefor, and has established an

effective date of September 28, 2000.

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58227

E. What Could Cause the Effective Date

of This Rule To Change?

A 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.

F. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

1. What Is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

2. Does the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply

to This Final Rule?

No. This rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did

not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

G. Executive Order 12898

1. 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.

2. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

This Final Rule?

No. Today’s final rule will have no

effect upon minority or low-income

populations. The amending regulation

promulgated today reflect current law

and is meant only to amend the Code of

Federal Regulations to comply with the

current legal status of the rules.

H. Executive Order 13045

1. What Is Executive Order 13045?

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866 and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule as defined

by Executive Order 12866 and because

the Agency does not have reason to

believe the environmental health or

safety risks addressed by this section

present a disproportionate risk to

children.

I. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction

Act?

According to the Paperwork

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

that requires OMB approval under the

PRA unless it has been approved by

OMB and displays a currently valid

OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after

initial display in the preamble of the

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

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).

2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. There are no information

collection requirements associated with

today’s rule.

J. Executive Order 13132

1. What Is Executive Order 13132?

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.

2. Does Executive Order 13132 Apply to

This Final Rule?

No. This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive order do not apply to this

rule.

58228 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 189 / Thursday, September 28, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

K. Executive Order 13084

1. What Is Executive Order 13084?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments

or unless 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.’’

2. Does Executive Order 13084 Apply to

This Final Rule?

No. 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.

L. Executive Order 12875

1. What Is Executive Order 12875?

Under Executive Order 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, 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.

2. Does Executive Order 12875 Apply to

This Rule?

No. Today’s action will have no

impact upon State, local, or tribal

governments. The amending regulations

promulgated today reflect current law

and will result in no legal impact on

public or private entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: September 18, 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,

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B to Part 300—[Amended]

2. Table 1 of appendix B to part 300

is amended by removing the site

‘‘Georgia-Pacific Corporation Hardwood

Sawmill’’, Plymouth, NC.

[FR Doc. 00–24672 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2106; MM Docket No. 00–75; RM–

9863]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Kahului,

HI

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

223C2 to Kahului, Hawaii, as that

community’s second local FM

transmission service, in response to a

petition for rule making filed by New

West Broadcasting. See 65 FR 33798,

May 25, 2000. The allotment requires a

site restriction 10.5 kilometers (6.5

miles) southeast of Kahului at

coordinates 20–50–24 NL and 156–23–

14 WL.

DATES: Effective October 30, 2000. A

filing window for Channel 223C2 at

Kahului, Hawaii, will not be opened at

this time. Instead, the issue of opening

a filing window for this channel will be

addressed by the Commission in a

subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)

418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 00–75,

adopted September 6, 2000, and

released September 15, 2000. The full

text of this Commission decision is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC’s Reference Information Center

(Room CY–A257), 445 Twelfth Street,

SW., Washington, DC. The complete

text of this decision may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857–3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 73—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Hawaii, is amended

by adding Channel 223C2 at Kahului.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 00–24880 Filed 9–27–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00–2106; MM Docket No. 00–74; RM–

9862]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Sterling,

CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel

248C3 to Sterling, Colorado, as that

community’s third local FM

transmission service, in response to a

petition for rule making filed by Ling

Broadcasting. See 65 FR 33798, May 25,

2000. Coordinates used for this proposal

are the city reference at 40–37–32 NL

and 103–12–25 WL.

DATES: Effective October 30, 2000. A

filing window for Channel 248C3 at