Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75179

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. ’’ This final rule

directly regulates growers, food

processors, food handlers and food

retailers, not States. This action does not

alter the relationships or distribution of

power and responsibilities established

by Congress in the preemption

provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4).

X. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit a

report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of this final

rule in the Federal Register. This final

rule is not a ‘‘major rule ’’ as defined by

5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: November 9, 2000.

Frank Sanders,

Director, Antimicrobial Division, Office of

Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is

amended as follows:

PART 180 — [AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 180

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), (346a) and

371.

2. Section 180.1197, is revised to read

as follows:

§ 180.1197 Hydrogen Peroxide; exemption

from the requirement of a tolerance.

(a) An exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance is established

for residues of hydrogen peroxide in or

on raw agricultural commodities, in

processed commodities, when such

residues result from the use of hydrogen

peroxide as an antimicrobial treatment

in solutions containing a diluted enduse concentration of hydrogen peroxide

up to 120 ppm per application on fruits,

vegetables, tree nuts, cereal grains,

herbs, and spices.

(b) An exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance is established

for residues of hydrogen peroxide in or

on all food commodities at the rate of

less than or equal to 1% hydrogen

peroxide per application on growing

crops and post harvest potatoes when

applied as an algaecide, fungicide and

bactericide.

(c) An exemption from the

requirement of a tolerance is established

for residues of hydrogen peroxide, in or

on all raw and processed food

commodities when used in sanitizing

solutions containing a diluted end-use

concentration of hydrogen peroxide up

to 1,100 ppm, and applied to tableware,

utensils, dishes, pipelines, tanks, vats,

fillers, evaporators, pasteurizers, aseptic

equipment, milking equipment, and

other food processing equipment in food

handling establishments including, but

not limited to dairies, dairy barns,

restaurants, food service operations,

breweries, wineries, and beverage and

food processing plants.

[FR Doc. 00–30680 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6910–4]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(‘‘CERCLA’’ or ‘‘the Act’’), as amended,

requires that the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’) include a list

of national priorities among the known

releases or threatened releases of

hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United

States. The National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’) constitutes this list. The NPL is

intended primarily to guide the

Environmental Protection Agency

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

which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with the

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

be appropriate. This rule adds 8 new

sites to the NPL; 7 sites to the General

Superfund Section of the NPL and one

site to the Federal Facilities Section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for

this amendment to the NCP shall be

January 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the

Headquarters and Regional dockets, as

well as further details on what these

dockets contain, see Section II,

‘‘Availability of Information to the

Public’’ in the ‘‘Supplementary

Information’’ portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603–8835,

State, Tribal and Site Identification

Center; Office of Emergency and

Remedial Response (mail code 5204G);

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;

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. Availability of Information to the Public

A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant

to this Final Rule?

B. What Documents are Available for

Review at the Headquarters Docket?

C. What Documents are Available for

Review at the Regional Docket?

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL

Sites?

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

B. Status of NPL

C. What did EPA Do with the Public

Comments It Received?

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What is Executive Order 12866?

B. Is this Final Rule Subject to Executive

Order 12866 Review?

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (UMRA)?

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?

VI. Effects on Small Businesses

A. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to this Final Rule?

VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of

the Rule

A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to

Congress and the General Accounting

Office?

B. Could the Effective Date of This Final

Rule Change?

75180 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of

This Rule to Change?

VIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

A. What is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

B. Does the National Technology Transfer

and Advancement Act Apply to this

Final Rule?

IX. Executive Order 12898

A. What is Executive Order 12898?

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

This Final Rule?

X. Executive Order 13045

A. What is Executive Order 13045?

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

XII. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are The Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Final Rule?

XIII. Executive Order 13084

What is Executive Order 13084 and is it

Applicable to this Final Rule?

I. Background

A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?

In 1980, Congress enacted the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601–9675 (‘‘CERCLA’’ or

‘‘the Act’’), in response to the dangers of

uncontrolled releases of hazardous

substances. CERCLA was amended on

October 17, 1986, by the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act

(‘‘SARA’’), Public Law 99–499, 100 Stat.

1613 et seq.

B. What Is the NCP?

To implement CERCLA, EPA

promulgated the revised National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (‘‘NCP’’), 40 CFR part

300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180),

pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and

Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237,

August 20, 1981). The NCP sets

guidelines and procedures for

responding to releases and threatened

releases of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants under

CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on

several occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

As required under section

105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also

includes ‘‘criteria for determining

priorities among releases or threatened

releases throughout the United States

for the purpose of taking remedial

action and, to the extent practicable,

taking into account the potential

urgency of such action for the purpose

of taking removal action.’’ (‘‘Removal’’

actions are defined broadly and include

a wide range of actions taken to study,

clean up, prevent or otherwise address

releases and threatened releases 42

U.S.C. 9601(23).)

C. What Is the National Priorities List

(NPL)?

The NPL is a list of national priorities

among the known or threatened releases

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants throughout the United

States. The list, which is appendix B of

the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required

under section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA,

as amended by SARA. Section

105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as a list of

‘‘releases’’ and the highest priority

‘‘facilities’’ and requires that the NPL be

revised at least annually. The NPL is

intended primarily to guide EPA in

determining which sites warrant further

investigation to assess the nature and

extent of public health and

environmental risks associated with a

release of hazardous substances. The

NPL is only of limited significance,

however, as it does not assign liability

to any party or to the owner of any

specific property. Neither does placing

a site on the NPL mean that any

remedial or removal action necessarily

need be taken.

For purposes of listing, the NPL

includes two sections, one of sites that

are generally evaluated and cleaned up

by EPA (the ‘‘General Superfund

Section’’), and one of sites that are

owned or operated by other Federal

agencies (the ‘‘Federal Facilities

Section’’). With respect to sites in the

Federal Facilities Section, these sites are

generally being addressed by other

Federal agencies. Under Executive

Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 29,

1987) and CERCLA section 120, each

Federal agency is responsible for

carrying out most response actions at

facilities under its own jurisdiction,

custody, or control, although EPA is

responsible for preparing an HRS score

and determining whether the facility is

placed on the NPL. EPA generally is not

the lead agency at Federal Facilities

Section sites, and its role at such sites

is accordingly less extensive than at

other sites.

D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?

There are three mechanisms for

placing sites on the NPL for possible

remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c)

of the NCP): (1) A site may be included

on the NPL if it scores sufficiently high

on the Hazard Ranking System (‘‘HRS’’),

which EPA promulgated as appendix A

of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS

serves as a screening device to evaluate

the relative potential of uncontrolled

hazardous substances to pose a threat to

human health or the environment. On

December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA

promulgated revisions to the HRS partly

in response to CERCLA section 105(c),

added by SARA. The revised HRS

evaluates four pathways: ground water,

surface water, soil exposure, and air. As

a matter of Agency policy, those sites

that score 28.50 or greater on the HRS

are eligible for the NPL; (2) Each State

may designate a single site as its top

priority to be listed on the NPL,

regardless of the HRS score. This

mechanism, provided by the NCP at 40

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

extent practicable, the NPL include

within the 100 highest priorities, one

facility designated by each State

representing the greatest danger to

public health, welfare, or the

environment among known facilities in

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

(3) The third mechanism for listing,

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 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 respond to the

releases, including enforcement action

under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

The NPL does not describe releases in

precise geographical terms; it would be

neither feasible nor consistent with the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75181

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify

releases that are priorities for further

evaluation), for it to do so.

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is

broadly defined to include any area

where a hazardous substance release has

‘‘come to be located’’ (CERCLA section

101(9)), the listing process itself is not

intended to define or reflect the

boundaries of such facilities or releases.

Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used

to list a site) upon which the NPL

placement was based will, to some

extent, describe the release(s) at issue.

That is, the NPL site would include all

releases evaluated as part of that HRS

analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach

generally used to describe the relevant

release(s) is to delineate a geographical

area (usually the area within an

installation or plant boundaries) and

identify the site by reference to that

area. As a legal matter, the site is not

coextensive with that area, and the

boundaries of the installation or plant

are not the ‘‘boundaries’’ of the site.

Rather, the site consists of all

contaminated areas within the area used

to identify the site, as well as any other

location to which that contamination

has come to be located, or from which

that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic

terms are often used to designate the site

(e.g., the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site’’) in terms

of the property owned by a particular

party, the site properly understood is

not limited to that property (e.g., it may

extend beyond the property due to

contaminant migration), and conversely

may not occupy the full extent of the

property (e.g., where there are

uncontaminated parts of the identified

property, they may not be, strictly

speaking, part of the ‘‘site’’). The ‘‘site’’

is thus neither equal to nor confined by

the boundaries of any specific property

that may give the site its name, and the

name itself should not be read to imply

that this site is coextensive with the

entire area within the property

boundary of the installation or plant.

The precise nature and extent of the site

are typically not known at the time of

listing. Also, the site name is merely

used to help identify the geographic

location of the contamination. For

example, the name ‘‘Jones Co. plant

site,’’ does not imply that the Jones

company is responsible for the

contamination located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the

‘‘nature and extent of the problem

presented by the release’’ will be

determined by a remedial investigation/

feasibility study (RI/FS) as more

information is developed on site

contamination (40 CFR 300.5). During

the RI/FS process, the release may be

found to be larger or smaller than was

originally thought, as more is learned

about the source(s) and the migration of

the contamination. However, this

inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the

threat posed; the boundaries of the

release need not be exactly defined.

Moreover, it generally is impossible to

discover the full extent of where the

contamination ‘‘has come to be located’’

before all necessary studies and

remedial work are completed at a site.

Indeed, the known boundaries of the

contamination can be expected to

change over time. Thus, in most cases,

it may be impossible to describe the

boundaries of a release with absolute

certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing

does not assign liability to any party or

to the owner of any specific property.

Thus, if a party does not believe it is

liable for releases on discrete parcels of

property, supporting information can be

submitted to the Agency at any time

after a party receives notice it is a

potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not

be amended as further research reveals

more information about the location of

the contamination or release.

G. How Are Sites Removed From the

NPL?

EPA may delete sites from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate under Superfund, as

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e). This section also provides

that EPA shall consult with states on

proposed deletions and shall consider

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been

implemented and no further response

action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown the release poses no significant

threat to public health or the

environment, and taking of remedial

measures is not appropriate.

As of 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).

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. Availability of Information to the

Public

A. Can I Review the Documents

Relevant to This Final Rule?

Yes, documents relating to the

evaluation and scoring of the sites in

this final rule are contained in dockets

located both at EPA Headquarters and in

the Regional offices.

B. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Headquarters Docket?

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains, for each site, the HRS score

sheets, the Documentation Record

describing the information used to

compute the score, pertinent

information regarding statutory

requirements or EPA listing policies that

affect the site, and a list of documents

referenced in the Documentation

Record. The Headquarters docket also

contains comments received, and the

Agency’s responses to those comments.

The Agency’s responses are contained

in the ‘‘Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List Final

Rule—December 2000.’’

C. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Regional Dockets?

The Regional dockets contain all the

information in the Headquarters docket,

plus the actual reference documents

containing the data principally relied

upon by EPA in calculating or

evaluating the HRS score for the sites

located in their Region. These reference

documents are available only in the

Regional dockets.

75182 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by

appointment only, after the publication

of this document. The hours of

operation for the Headquarters docket

are from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays. Please contact the Regional

dockets for hours.

Following is the contact information

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA

CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway

#1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, 703/603–8917.

The contact information for the

Regional dockets is as follows:

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–115,

Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553–6699.

E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of

NPL Sites?

You may obtain a current list of NPL

sites via the Internet at http://

www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under

site information category) or by

contacting the Superfund Docket (see

contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Addition to the NPL

This final rule adds 8 sites to the NPL;

7 sites to the General Superfund Section

of the NPL and one site to the Federal

Facilities Section. Table 1 presents the

7 sites in the General Superfund Section

and Table 2 presents the site in the

Federal Facilities Section. Sites in the

tables are arranged alphabetically by

State.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION

State Site name City/

county

CA ..... Alark Hard Chrome ..... Riverside.

FL ...... Alaric Area Ground

Water Plume.

Tampa.

IL ....... Indian Refinery-Texaco

Lawrenceville..

Lawrenceville.

MO .... Riverfront ..................... New

Haven.

MT ..... Lockwood Solvent

Ground Water Plume.

Billings.

OR ..... Portland Harbor ........... Portland.

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

Number of Sites Added to the General

Superfund Section: 7.

TABLE 2.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

FINAL RULE, FEDERAL FACILITIES

SECTION

State Site name City/

county

VA ..... Naval Weapons Station

Yorktown—

Cheatham Annex.

Williamsburg.

Number of Sites Added to the Federal Facilities Section: 1.

B. Status of NPL

With the 8 new sites added to the NPL

in today’s final rule; the NPL now

contains 1,231 final sites; 1,071 in the

General Superfund Section and 160 in

the Federal Facilities Section. With a

separate rule (published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register) proposing to

add 13 new sites to the NPL, 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. What Did EPA Do With the Public

Comments It Received?

EPA reviewed all comments received

on the sites in this rule. The Indian

Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville site was

proposed July 28, 1998 (63 FR 40247).

(Please note that an addendum

providing additional information for the

Indian Refinery-Texaco Lawrenceville

site was proposed on May 11, 2000 (65

FR 30489).) The Alaric Area Ground

Water Plume site and the Naval

Weapons Station Yorktown—Cheatham

Annex site were both proposed on

February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5468). The Gilt

Edge Mine and Lockwood Solvent

Ground Water Plume sites were

proposed on May 11, 2000 (65 FR

30489). The Alark Hard Chrome,

Riverfront, Portland Harbor sites were

proposed on July 27, 2000 (65 FR

46131).

For Alark Hard Chrome and

Riverfront sites, EPA received no

comments and therefore, EPA is placing

them on the final NPL at this time.

EPA responded to all relevant

comments received on the other sites.

EPA’s responses to site-specific public

comments are addressed in the

‘‘Support Document for the Revised

National Priorities List Final Rule—

December 2000’’.

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

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

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

B. Is This Final Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted this

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75183

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA)?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before EPA

promulgates a rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective, or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation why that alternative

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes

any regulatory requirements that may

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, including tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments, enabling

officials of affected small governments

to have meaningful and timely input in

the development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small governments on compliance with

the regulatory requirements.

B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final

Rule?

No, EPA has determined that this rule

does not contain a Federal mandate that

may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and

tribal governments in the aggregate, or

by the private sector in any one year.

This rule will not impose any federal

intergovernmental mandate because it

imposes no enforceable duty upon State,

tribal or local governments. Listing a

site on the NPL does not itself impose

any costs. Listing does not mean that

EPA necessarily will undertake

remedial action. Nor does listing require

any action by a private party or

determine liability for response costs.

Costs that arise out of site responses

result from site-specific decisions

regarding what actions to take, not

directly from the act of listing a site on

the NPL.

For the same reasons, EPA also has

determined that this rule contains no

regulatory requirements that might

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. In addition, as discussed

above, the private sector is not expected

to incur costs exceeding $100 million.

EPA has fulfilled the requirement for

analysis under the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility

Act?

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility

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

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of

1996) whenever an agency is required to

publish a notice of rulemaking for any

proposed or final rule, it must prepare

and make available for public comment

a regulatory flexibility analysis that

describes the effect of the rule on small

entities (i.e., small businesses, small

organizations, and small governmental

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory

flexibility analysis is required if the

head of an agency certifies the rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. SBREFA amended the

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require

Federal agencies to provide a statement

of the factual basis for certifying that a

rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

B. Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. While this rule revises the NPL,

an NPL revision is not a typical

regulatory change since it does not

automatically impose costs. As stated

above, adding sites to the NPL does not

in itself require any action by any party,

nor does it determine the liability of any

party for the cost of cleanup at the site.

Further, no identifiable groups are

affected as a whole. As a consequence,

impacts on any group are hard to

predict. A site’s inclusion on the NPL

could increase the likelihood of adverse

impacts on responsible parties (in the

form of cleanup costs), but at this time

EPA cannot identify the potentially

affected businesses or estimate the

number of small businesses that might

also be affected.

The Agency does expect that placing

the sites in this rule on the NPL could

significantly affect certain industries, or

firms within industries, that have

caused a proportionately high

percentage of waste site problems.

However, EPA does not expect the

listing of these sites to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses.

In any case, economic impacts would

occur only through enforcement and

cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes

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

EPA considers many factors when

determining enforcement actions,

including not only a firm’s contribution

to the problem, but also its ability to

pay. The impacts (from cost recovery)

on small governments and nonprofit

organizations would be determined on a

similar case-by-case basis.

For the foregoing reasons, I hereby

certify that this rule, if promulgated,

will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Therefore, this regulation does

not require a regulatory flexibility

analysis.

VII. Possible Changes to the Effective

Date of the Rule

A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to

Congress and the General Accounting

Office?

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA has submitted

a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and

the Comptroller General of the United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. A ‘‘major rule’’

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

B. Could the Effective Date of This Final

Rule Change?

Provisions of the Congressional

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of

CERCLA may alter the effective date of

this regulation.

Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a),

before a rule can take effect the federal

agency promulgating the rule must

75184 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

submit a report to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller

General. This report must contain a

copy of the rule, a concise general

statement relating to the rule (including

whether it is a major rule), a copy of the

cost-benefit analysis of the rule (if any),

the agency’s actions relevant to

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (affecting small businesses) and the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(describing unfunded federal

requirements imposed on state and local

governments and the private sector),

and any other relevant information or

requirements and any relevant

Executive Orders.

EPA has submitted a report under the

CRA for this rule. The rule will take

effect, as provided by law, within 30

days of publication of this document,

since it is not a major rule. Section

804(2) defines a major rule as any rule

that the Administrator of the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs

(OIRA) of the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or

is likely to result in: an annual effect on

the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a

major increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions; or

significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and

export markets. NPL listing is not a

major rule because, as explained above,

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary

costs on any person. It establishes no

enforceable duties, does not establish

that EPA necessarily will undertake

remedial action, nor does it require any

action by any party or determine its

liability for site response costs. Costs

that arise out of site responses result

from site-by-site decisions about what

actions to take, not directly from the act

of listing itself. Section 801(a)(3)

provides for a delay in the effective date

of major rules after this report is

submitted.

C. What Could Cause the Effective Date

of This Rule To Change?

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall

not take effect, or continue in effect, if

Congress enacts (and the President

signs) a joint resolution of disapproval,

described under section 802.

Another statutory provision that may

affect this rule is CERCLA section 305,

which provides for a legislative veto of

regulations promulgated under

CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462

U.S. 919,103 S. Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd.

of Regents of the University of

Washington v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222

(D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the

legislative veto into question, EPA has

transmitted a copy of this regulation to

the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk

of the House of Representatives.

If action by Congress under either the

CRA or CERCLA section 305 calls the

effective date of this regulation into

question, EPA will publish a document

of clarification in the Federal Register.

VIII. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

A. What Is the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act?

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

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

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards in its regulatory activities

unless to do so would be inconsistent

with applicable law or otherwise

impractical. Voluntary consensus

standards are technical standards (e.g.,

materials specifications, test methods,

sampling procedures, and business

practices) that are developed or adopted

by voluntary consensus standards

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to

provide Congress, through OMB,

explanations when the Agency decides

not to use available and applicable

voluntary consensus standards.

B. Does the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act Apply

to This Final Rule?

No. This rulemaking does not involve

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did

not consider the use of any voluntary

consensus standards.

IX. Executive Order 12898

A. What Is Executive Order 12898?

Under Executive Order 12898,

‘‘Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low-Income

Populations,’’ as well as through EPA’s

April 1995, ‘‘Environmental Justice

Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice

Task Force Action Agenda Report,’’ and

National Environmental Justice

Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken

to incorporate environmental justice

into its policies and programs. EPA is

committed to addressing environmental

justice concerns, and is assuming a

leadership role in environmental justice

initiatives to enhance environmental

quality for all residents of the United

States. The Agency’s goals are to ensure

that no segment of the population,

regardless of race, color, national origin,

or income, bears disproportionately

high and adverse human health and

environmental effects as a result of

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities,

and all people live in clean and

sustainable communities.

B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to

This Final Rule?

No. While this rule revises the NPL,

no action will result from this rule that

will have disproportionately high and

adverse human health and

environmental effects on any segment of

the population.

X. Executive Order 13045

A. What Is Executive Order 13045?

Executive Order 13045: ‘‘Protection of

Children from Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that:

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it is not an economically

significant rule as defined by E.O.

12866, and because the Agency does not

have reason to believe the

environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this section present a

disproportionate risk to children.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction

Act?

According to the Paperwork

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

that requires OMB approval under the

PRA, unless it has been approved by

OMB and displays a currently valid

OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after

initial display in the preamble of the

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The information collection requirements

related to this action have already been

approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA

under OMB control number 2070–0012

(EPA ICR No. 574).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 75185

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. EPA has determined that the PRA

does not apply because this rule does

not contain any information collection

requirements that require approval of

the OMB.

XII. Executive Orders on Federalism

What Are the Executive Orders on

Federalism and Are They Applicable to

This Final Rule?

Executive Order 13132, entitled

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

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’

Under Section 6 of Executive Order

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law, unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

rule.

XIII. Executive Order 13084

What Is Executive Order 13084 and Is It

Applicable to This Final Rule?

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’

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 final rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Natural

resources, Oil pollution, Penalties,

Reporting and record keeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste

and Emergency Response.

40 CFR part 300 is amended as

follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

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

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

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

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

2. Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix

B to Part 300 is amended by adding the

following sites in alphabetical order to

read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300—National

Priorities List

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

CA ......... Alark Hard Chrome ...................................................................................................... Riverside.

*******

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

*******

IL ........... Indian Refinery—Texaco Lawrenceville ....................................................................... Lawrenceville.

*******

MO ........ Riverfront ...................................................................................................................... New Haven.

*******

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

75186 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 232 / Friday, December 1, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

OR ......... Portland Harbor ............................................................................................................ Portland.

*******

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

*******

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be ≤ 28.50).

C = Sites on Construction Completion list.

S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).

P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

TABLE 2.—FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes a

*******

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

*******

aA = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be ≤ 28.50).

C = Sites on Construction Completion list.

S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).

P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

[FR Doc. 00–30630 Filed 11–30–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 230

[Docket No. 001120325-0325-01: I.D.

110800B]

RIN 0648-A077

Whaling Provisions: Aboriginal

Subsistence Whaling Quotas

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Aboriginal subsistence whaling

quota.

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the

aboriginal subsistence whaling quota for

gray whales, and other limitations

deriving from regulations adopted at the

1997 Annual Meeting of the

International Whaling Commission

(IWC). For 2000, the quota is zero gray

whales landed. This quota and other

limitations will govern the harvest of

gray whales by members of the Makah

Indian Tribe (Tribe).

DATES: Effective November 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Office of Protected

Resources, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 1315 East West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Campbell, (202) 482-2652.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Aboriginal

subsistence whaling in the United States

is governed by the Whaling Convention

Act (16 U.S.C. 916 et seq.), which

requires the Secretary of Commerce to

publish, at least annually, aboriginal

subsistence whaling quotas and any

other limitations on aboriginal

subsistence whaling deriving from

regulations of the IWC.

At the 1997 Annual Meeting of the

IWC, the Commission set quotas for

aboriginal subsistence use of gray

whales from the Eastern stock in the

North Pacific. The gray whale quota was

based on a joint request by the Russian

Federation and the United States, with

documentation of the needs of 2 Native

groups, the Chukotka Natives and the

Tribe in Washington State.

This action by the IWC thus

authorized aboriginal subsistence

whaling by the Tribe for gray whales, as

discussed in greater detail in the 1999

notification (64 FR 28413). This

aboriginal subsistence harvest is

conducted in accordance with a

cooperative agreement between NOAA

and the Makah Tribal Council (Council).

The IWC set a 5-year block quota

(1998 through 2002) of 620 gray whales,

with an annual cap of 140 animals

taken. The IWC regulation does not

address the number of allowed strikes.

The requested quota and accompanying

documentation assumed an average

annual harvest of 120 whales by the

Chukotka people and an average annual

harvest of 4 whales by the Tribe.

The United States and the Russian

Federation have concluded an

arrangement providing that the Tribe

may take no more than five gray whales,

and the Russian natives may take no

more than 135 gray whales. On June 9,

however, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that

the Department of Commerce’s

environmental assessment (EA) under

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) should have been completed

before agreeing to request a gray whale

quota from the IWC. The Court ordered

the agency to prepare a new EA under

circumstances that would ensure an

objective evaluation of the

environmental consequences of the gray

whale harvest.

NOAA has begun preparation of the

new EA. In the meantime, NOAA is

setting the gray whale quota at zero,

pending completion of the NEPA

process. NOAA has also rescinded its

cooperative agreement with the Council.

November 28, 2000.

Penelope D. Dalton,

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries,

National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00–30650 Filed 11–28–00; 3:53 pm]

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S