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

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated annual costss to

State, local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under Section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual costs of $100 million

or more to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of

nitrogen ozone, Reporting and record

keeping requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

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

Dated: January 21, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6532–6]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 31

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), requires that

the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(‘‘NCP’’) include a list of national

priorities among the known releases or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. The

National Priorities List (‘‘NPL’’)

constitutes this list. The NPL is

intended primarily to guide the

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’ or ‘‘the Agency’’) in determining

which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may

be appropriate. This proposed rule

proposes to add 8 new sites to the NPL.

Six of the sites are being proposed to the

General Superfund Section of the NPL

and 2 of the sites are being proposed to

the Federal Facilities Section.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these

proposed listings must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before April 4, 2000.

ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail

original and three copies of comments

(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. EPA;

CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code

5201G); Ariel Rios Building; 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue NW; Washington,

DC 20460.

By Express Mail: Send original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway; Crystal Gateway #1, First

Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format

only may be mailed directly to

superfund.docket@epa.gov. E-mailed

comments must be followed up by an

original and three copies sent by mail or

express mail.

For additional Docket addresses and

further details on their contents, see

section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public

Comment,’’ of the Supplementary

Information portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603–8835,

State, Tribal and Site Identification

Center, Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

Ariel Rios Building; 1200 Pennsylvania

Avenue NW; Washington, DC 20460, or

the Superfund Hotline, Phone (800)

424–9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What are CERCLA and SARA?

B. What is the NCP?

C. What is the National Priorities List

(NPL)?

D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL?

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?

H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from

the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

I. What is the Construction Completion List

(CCL)?

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant

to This Proposed Rule?

B. How do I Access the Documents?

C. What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Headquarters

Docket?

D. What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Regional Dockets?

E. How Do I Submit My Comments?

F. What Happens to My Comments?

G. What Should I Consider When

Preparing My Comments?

H. Can I Submit Comments After the

Public Comment Period Is Over?

I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted

by Others?

J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites

Not Currently Proposed to the NPL?

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

B. Status of NPL

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What is Executive Order 12866?

B. Is This Proposed Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (UMRA)?

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Proposed

Rule?

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

B. Has EPA Conducted a Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis for This Rule?

VII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

A. What is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

B. Does the National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act Apply to This

Proposed Rule?

VIII. Executive Order 12898

A. What is Executive Order 12898?

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

this Proposed Rule?

IX. Executive Order 13045

A. What is Executive Order 13045?

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

this Proposed Rule?

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to this Proposed Rule?

XI. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are The Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Proposed Rule?

XII. Executive Order 13084

What is Executive Order 13084 and Is It

Applicable to this Proposed Rule?

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5469

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’’), Pub. L. 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. 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 an 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 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 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

5470 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

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

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.

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. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5471

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.

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.

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 8 new sites to the NPL;

6 sites to the General Superfund Section

of the NPL and 2 sites to the Federal

Facilities Section. The sites are being

proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50

or above. The sites being proposed in

this rule are presented in Table 1 and

Table 2 which both follow this

preamble.

B. Status of NPL

A final rule published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register finalizes 10

sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of

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

Superfund Section and 159 in the

Federal Facilities Section. With this

proposal of 8 new sites, 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.)

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 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

5472 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules 5473

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 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 Proposed Rule?

This proposed 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 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?

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 proposed rule does not create a

mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The proposed 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 proposed 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

proposed 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 proposed

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 proposed 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

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this proposed rule.

5474 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 24 / Friday, February 4, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1The ADAMHA Reorganization Act, Pub. L. 102–

321 (July 10, 1992), established SAMHSA as a

successor-in-interest to ADAMHA for the purpose,

inter alia, of administering the services oriented

functions previously the responsibility of

ADAMHA and created two block grant programs

including the SAPT program (now administered by

SAMHSA) to replace the ADMS Block Grant

program.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 31, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county

AR ................. Ouachita Nevada Wood Treater .................................................................................................................. Reader.

FL .................. Alaric Area Ground Water Plume ................................................................................................................. Tampa.

FL .................. Callaway & Son Drum Service ..................................................................................................................... Lake Alfred.

FL .................. Landia Chemical Company .......................................................................................................................... Lakeland.

NY ................. Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated Ground Water Area .............................................................................. Garden City.

WV ................ Big John Salvage—Hoult Road .................................................................................................................... Fairmont.

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 6.

TABLE 2.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE NO. 31, FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county

VA ................. St. Juliens Creek Annex (U.S. Navy) ........................................................................................................... Chesapeake.

VA ................. Naval Weapons Station Yorktown—Cheatham Annex ................................................................................ Williamsburg.

Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 2.

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: January 28, 2000.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 00–2475 Filed 2–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 96

RIN 0930–AA04

Application Deadline for SAPT Block

Grant Program

AGENCY: HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule

making.

SUMMARY: The Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) (formerly, the Alcohol, Drug

Abuse and Mental Health

Administration (ADAMHA)) has

permitted applicants for its Substance

Abuse Prevention and Treatment

(SAPT) Block Grant program to submit

an application for a grant as late as

March 31 of the fiscal year for which it

is applying. Starting with the fiscal year

2001 applications, SAMHSA is

proposing a new date for receipt of the

applications for SAPT Block Grants of

October 1 of the fiscal year for which

Block Grant funding is being requested.

However, the deadline for two

application components required to be

submitted by that due date may be

extended for a limited period, not to

extend beyond December 31 of the same

fiscal year when good cause is

demonstrated.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before March 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be sent to Thomas

M. Reynolds, Room 13C–20, Parklawn

Bldg., 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD

20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas M. Reynolds. (301) 443–0179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: When

SAMHSA first implemented the SAPT

Block Grant program, a primary concern

was affording States sufficient time to

develop the increased information

required to apply for a grant under this

program as compared to the generally

less detailed application required under

the predecessor ADMS Block Grant

program administered by ADAMHA 1.

This was accomplished by affording

States the opportunity to delay

submitting their applications to as late

as March 31, fully six months into the

fiscal year for which funding is

requested (See 45 CFR 96.122(d). This

relatively late receipt date results in

insufficient time to administer the SAPT

Block Grant program in accordance with

all the governing provisions of law. This

is most noted under circumstances

calling for the clarification of

application data and, if necessary, the

conduct of hearings related to certain

adverse decisions needing resolution by

the end of the fiscal year. A tentative

adverse decision requires that the

applicant be provided an opportunity

for a hearing consistent with section

1945(e) of the Public Health Service

(PHS) Act, and there remains, as a

practical matter, insufficient time in the

fiscal year to provide a hearing, reach a

final decision, and possibly redistribute

withheld funds to the remaining

applicants as provided by law (see

section 1944 of the PHS Act).

States are now fully aware of the

application requirements and can

reasonably be expected to respond to an

earlier submission date. However, if a

State determines that it will not be able

to submit by October 1 either the report

as required at 45 CFR 96.130(e) on

Synar enforcement efforts and State

success in reducing youth access to

tobacco products during the preceding

fiscal year, or the information on State

expenditures during the preceding year

as required at 45 CFR 96.134(d), the

State may request an extension of the

due date(s) for a limited period, not to

extend past December 31 of the fiscal

year for which application is made. The

request for the extension must be signed

by the official with the authority to

apply for the grant or the Governor, and

must be submitted no later than

September 1 of the prior fiscal year. The

extension request must state for which

requirement the extension is requested;

include an explanation of why the State

is unable to comply with the due date

of October 1; state the date of

submission the State is requesting; and