[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 75215-75221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30631]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-6910-3]


National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites, 
Proposed Rule No. 34

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 CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), 
if any, may be appropriate. This proposed rule proposes to add 13 new 
sites to the NPL. Twelve of the sites are being proposed to the General 
Superfund Section of the NPL and one site is being proposed to the 
Federal Facilities Section on the NPL. (Please note that one of the 
sites is being reproposed to the NPL.)

DATES: Comments regarding any of these proposed listings must be 
submitted (postmarked) on or before January 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: By Postal Mail: Mail original and three copies of comments 
(no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; (Mail Code 
5201G); 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    By Express Mail or Courier: Send original and three copies of 
comments (no facsimiles or tapes) to Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; CERCLA Docket Office; 1235 
Jefferson Davis Highway; Crystal Gateway #1, First Floor; Arlington, VA 
22202.
    By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format only may be mailed directly to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1d2d4d1c4d3c7d4cfc58fc5cec2cac4d5e1c4d1c08fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="abd8dedbced9cddec5cf85cfc4c8c0cedfebcedbca85ccc4dd">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.

[[Page 75216]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603-8835, 
State, Tribal and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and 
Remedial Response (Mail Code 5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; or the 
Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the 
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What are CERCLA and SARA?
    B. What is the NCP?
    C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?
    G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from the NPL as They Are 
Cleaned Up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Public Review/Public Comment
    A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?
    B. How do I Access the Documents?
    C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the 
Headquarters Docket?
    D. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the 
Regional Dockets?
    E. How Do I Submit My Comments?
    F. What Happens to My Comments?
    G. What Should I Consider When Preparing My Comments?
    H. Can I Submit Comments After the Public Comment Period Is 
Over?
    I. Can I View Public Comments Submitted by Others?
    J. Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites Not Currently Proposed 
to the NPL?
III. Contents of This Proposed Rule
    A. Proposed Additions to the NPL
    B. Status of NPL
    C. Withdrawal of Site from Proposal to the 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?

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 a 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

[[Page 75217]]

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:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat 
to public health.
    <bullet> 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 
July 27, 2000 (65 FR 46096).

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund 
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'') 
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. * 
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing 
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA 
may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases, 
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located'' 
(CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to 
define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of 
course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not 
coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or 
plant are not the ``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists 
of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as 
well as any other location to which contamination from that area has 
come to be located, or from which that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are 
typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is 
merely used to help identify the geographic location of the 
contamination. For example, the ``Jones Co. plant site,'' does not 
imply that the Jones company is responsible for the contamination 
located on the plant site.
    EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the problem 
presented by the release'' will be determined by a Remedial 
Investigation/Feasibility Study (``RI/FS'') as more information is 
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During the RI/FS 
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was 
originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the 
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an 
evaluation of the 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 November 20, 2000, the Agency has deleted 227 
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 November 
20, 2000, EPA has deleted portions of 21 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).

[[Page 75218]]

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.
    As of November 20, 2000, there are a total of 757 sites on the CCL. 
For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site 
at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.

II. Public Review/Public Comment

A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Proposed Rule?

    Yes, documents that form the basis for EPA's evaluation and scoring 
of the sites in this rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA 
Headquarters in Washington, DC and in the Regional offices.

B. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, in the 
Headquarters or the Regional dockets after the appearance of this 
proposed rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters docket are 
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding Federal 
holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for hours.
    Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters 
docket: Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket 
Office, Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Arlington, VA 22202, 703/603-9232. (Please note this is a visiting 
address only. Mail comments to EPA Headquarters as detailed at the 
beginning of this preamble.)
    The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows:
    Ellen Culhane, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Records 
Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 
02114-2023; 617/918-1225.
    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.
    Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th 
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
    David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 
18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-SA, Denver, CO 80202-2466; 303/
312-6757.
    Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/744-2343.
    Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 
1200 6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-110, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-6699.
    You may also request copies from EPA Headquarters or the Regional 
dockets. An informal request, rather than a formal written request 
under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary procedure 
for obtaining copies of any of these documents.

C. What Documents Are Available for Public Review at the Headquarters 
Docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this rule contains: HRS score sheets 
for the proposed sites; a Documentation Record for the sites describing 
the information used to compute the score; information for any sites 
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.

[[Page 75219]]

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Additions to the NPL

    With today's proposed rule, EPA is proposing to add 13 new sites to 
the NPL; 12 to the General Superfund Section of the NPL and one site to 
the Federal Facilities Section. (Please note that the Del Amo site in 
California is being reproposed to the NPL.) The sites in this proposed 
rulemaking are being proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50 or above. 
The sites are presented in Table 1 and Table 2 which follow this 
preamble.

B. Status of NPL

    A final rule published elsewhere in today's Federal Register 
finalizes 8 sites to the NPL; resulting in an NPL of 1,231 final sites; 
1,071 in the General Superfund Section and 160 in the Federal 
Facilities Section. With this proposal of 13 new sites, there are now 
63 sites proposed and awaiting final agency action, 57 in the General 
Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and 
proposed sites now total 1,294. (These numbers reflect the status of 
sites as of November 20, 2000. Site deletions occurring after this date 
may affect these numbers at time of publication in the Federal 
Register.)

C. Withdrawal of Site From Proposal to the NPL

    EPA is withdrawing the American Bemberg site in Elizabethton, 
Tennessee from proposal to the NPL. Refer to the Superfund docket for 
supporting documentation regarding this action.

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 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 cost-effective, 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

[[Page 75220]]

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 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?

    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

[[Page 75221]]

local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early 
in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not 
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts 
State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

XII. Executive Order 13084

What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It Applicable to This Proposed 
Rule?

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Under section 3(b) of 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. In this case, the addition of the site 
to the NPL will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs on 
the Tribes. While the Tribes may incur costs from participating in the 
investigations and cleanup decisions, those costs are not compliance 
costs. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 
13084 do not apply to this proposed rule.

    Table 1.--National Priorities List Proposed Rule No. 34, General
                            Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                 Site name               City/  county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA..................  Del Amo.................  Los Angeles.
CT..................  Broad Brook Mill........  East Windsor.
ID..................  St. Maries Creosote.....  St. Maries.
MT..................  Barker Hughesville        Barker.
                       Mining District.
MT..................  Carpenter Snow Creek      Neihart.
                       Mining District.
NY..................  Consolidated Iron and     Newburgh.
                       Metal.
OR..................  Taylor Lumber and         Sheridan.
                       Treating.
UT..................  Bountiful/Woods Cross     Bountiful/Woods Cross.
                       5th South PCE Plume.
UT..................  Davenport and Flagstaff   Sandy City.
                       Smelters.
VT..................  Elizabeth Mine..........  Strafford.
WA..................  Lower Duwamish Waterway.  Seattle.
WI..................  Ashland/Northland States  Ashland.
                       Power Lakefront.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 12.

    Table 2.--National Priorities List Proposed Rule No. 34, Federal
                           Facilities Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                   Site name              City/  county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL...................  Chanute Air Force Base....  Rantoul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 1.

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: November 22, 2000.
Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 00-30631 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>