Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32235

EPA-APPROVED DELAWARE SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of

source Permit number State effectivedate EPA approval date Comments

*******

SPI Polyols,

Inc.

Secretary’s Order No. 2000–A–0033 .......................... 07/11/00 6/14/01, 66 FR 32235 ...... Polyhydrate Alcohol’s Catalyst Regenarative Process—Approved NOX

RACT Determination

Citisteel ....... Secretary’s Order No. 2000–A–0033 .......................... 07/11/00 6/14/01, 66 FR 32235 ...... Electric Arc Furnace— Approved NOX RACT Determination

General

Chemical

Corp.

Secretary’s Order No. 2000–A–0033 .......................... 07/11/00 6/14/01, 66 FR 32235 ...... (1) Sulfuric Acid Process

& Interstage Absorption

System (2) Metallic Nitrite Process—Approved

NOX RACT Determinations

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14898 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–6994–4]

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, and is

intended primarily to guide the

Environmental Protection Agency

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

which sites warrant further

investigation. This rule adds 10 new

sites to the General Superfund Section

of the NPL. These sites will be assessed

to determine the nature and extent of

public health and environmental risks

associated with them, and to determine

what CERCLA-financed remedial

action(s), if any, may be appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for

this final rule shall be July 16, 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?

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 13175

What Is Executive Order 13175 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

32236 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 December

1, 2000 (65 FR 75179).

E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

A site may undergo remedial action

financed by the Trust Fund established

under CERCLA (commonly referred to

as the ‘‘Superfund’’) only after it is

placed on the NPL, as provided in the

NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).

(‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,

taken instead of or in addition to

removal actions * * *.’’ 42 U.S.C.

9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR

300.425(b)(2) placing a site on the NPL

‘‘does not imply that monies will be

expended.’’ EPA may pursue other

appropriate authorities to respond to the

releases, including enforcement action

under CERCLA and other laws.

F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?

The NPL does not describe releases in

precise geographical terms; it would be

neither feasible nor consistent with the

limited purpose of the NPL (to identify

releases that are priorities for further

evaluation), for it to do so.

Although a CERCLA ‘‘facility’’ is

broadly defined to include any area

where a hazardous substance release has

‘‘come to be located’’ (CERCLA section

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

intended to define or reflect the

boundaries of such facilities or releases.

Of course, HRS data (if the HRS is used

to list a site) upon which the NPL

placement was based will, to some

extent, describe the release(s) at issue.

That is, the NPL site would include all

releases evaluated as part of that HRS

analysis.

When a site is listed, the approach

generally used to describe the relevant

release(s) is to delineate a geographical

area (usually the area within an

installation or plant boundaries) and

identify the site by reference to that

area. As a legal matter, the site is not

coextensive with that area, and the

boundaries of the installation or plant

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

Rather, the site consists of all

contaminated areas within the area used

to identify the site, as well as any other

location to which that contamination

has come to be located, or from which

that contamination came.

In other words, while geographic

terms are often used to designate the site

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32237

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 May 21, 2001, the Agency has

deleted 232 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 May 21, 2001, EPA has

deleted portions of 23 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 May 21, 2001, there are a total

of 766 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—June 2001.’’

C. What Documents Are Available for

Review at the Regional Dockets?

The Regional dockets contain all the

information in the Headquarters docket,

plus the actual reference documents

containing the data principally relied

upon by EPA in calculating or

evaluating the HRS score for the sites

located in their Region. These reference

documents are available only in the

Regional dockets.

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

You may view the documents, by

appointment only, after the publication

of this document. The hours of

operation for the Headquarters docket

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

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays. Please contact the Regional

dockets for hours.

Following is the contact information

for the EPA Headquarters: Docket

Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA

CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal Gateway

#1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway, Arlington, VA, 703/603–8917.

The contact information for the

Regional dockets is as follows:

Ellen Culhane, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA,

NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund

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 (ASRC), Region 3

(DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,

32238 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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

the Superfund sites category) or by

contacting the Superfund Docket (see

contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Addition to the NPL

This final rule adds 10 sites to the

NPL; all to the General Superfund

Section of the NPL. Table 1 presents the

10 sites in the General Superfund

Section. Sites in the tables are arranged

alphabetically by State.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION

State and site name City/county

CA—Cooper Drum

Company.

South Gate.

MA—Nuclear Metals,

Inc.

Concord.

MA—Sutton Brook Disposal Area.Tewksbury.

NM—Griggs & Walnut

Ground Water Plume.

Las Cruces.

NY—Consolidated Iron

and Metal.

Newburgh.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST

FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND

SECTION—Continued

State and site name City/county

NY—Shenandoah Road

Ground Water Contamination.

East Fishkill.

OR—Taylor Lumber

and Treating.

Sheridan.

PA—Lower Darby

Creek Area.

Delaware/Philadelphia Counties.

TX—Malone Service

Company, Inc..

Texas City.

VT—Elizabeth Mine ..... Strafford.

Number of Sites Added to the General

Superfund Section: 10.

B. Status of NPL

With the 10 new sites added to the

NPL in today’s final rule; the NPL now

contains 1,236 final sites; 1,076 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 10 new sites to the NPL, there are

now 67 sites proposed and awaiting

final agency action, 61 in the General

Superfund Section and 6 in the Federal

Facilities Section. Final and proposed

sites now total 1,303. (These numbers

reflect the status of sites as of May 21,

2001. 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 Lower

Darby Creek site was proposed May 11,

2000 (63 FR 30489). The Nuclear

Metals, Inc. and Sutton Brook Disposal

Area sites were proposed on July 27,

2000 (65 FR 46131). The Malone Service

Company, Inc. site was proposed on

Aug 24, 2000 (65 FR 51567). The

Consolidated Iron and Metals, Taylor

Lumber and Treating, and Elizabeth

Mine sites were proposed on December

1, 2000 (65 FR 75215). The Copper

Drum Company, Griggs & Walnut

Ground Water Plume, and Shenandoah

Road Ground Water Contamination sites

were proposed on January 11, 2001 (65

FR 2380).

For the Copper Drum Company and

the Griggs & Walnut Ground Water

Plume sites, EPA received no comments

and therefore, EPA is placing them on

the final NPL at this time.

For Shenandoah Road Ground Water

Contamination site, EPA received only

comments supporting the listing of the

sites to the NPL 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—June

2001.’’

IV. Executive Order 12866

A. What Is Executive Order 12866?

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR

51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency

must determine whether a regulatory

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore

subject to OMB review and the

requirements of the Executive Order.

The Order defines ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as one that is likely

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

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more or adversely affect in a

material way the economy, a sector of

the economy, productivity, competition,

jobs, the environment, public health or

safety, or State, local, or tribal

governments or communities; (2) create

a serious inconsistency or otherwise

interfere with an action taken or

planned by another agency; (3)

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in the Executive

Order.

B. Is This Final Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates

A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act (UMRA)?

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures by State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of $100 million

or more in any one year. Before EPA

promulgates a rule for which a written

statement is needed, section 205 of the

UMRA generally requires EPA to

identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32239

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. The RFA does not apply to NPL

listings (See 65 FR 46135 (July 27,

2000)). The RFA generally requires an

agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility

analysis of any rule for which an agency

must publish a notice of general

rulemaking under the Administrative

Procedure Act or any other statute.

Under RFA section 601(2), however, the

term ‘‘rule’’ means any rule for which

the agency publishes a general notice of

rulemaking but does not include a rule

of ‘‘particular applicability relating

* * * to facilities* * *.’’ 5 U.S.C.

601(2). Here, while EPA published a

notice of rulemaking for these listings,

each listing is based on determinations

unique to individual sites and the

listing applies only to one facility or

site. Consequently, each listing is a rule

of particular applicability and thus, the

RFA does not apply to the listing of

these individual sites on the NPL.

Moreover, the listing of these

individual sites on the NPL does not

impose any obligations on small entities

or any other identifiable group. The rule

sets no standards or a regulatory regime

that any small entity must meet. The

listing imposes no liability or costs on

any small entity (65 FR 46135 (July 27,

2000)). Whether an entity, small or

otherwise, is liable for response costs for

a release of hazardous substances

depends on whether that entity is liable

under CERCLA 107(a). Any such

liability exists irrespective of whether

the site is listed on the NPL.

A commenter questioned whether we

had adequately assessed the impact on

small businesses located near one of the

sites included in today’s final rule (the

Nuclear Metals, Inc. site). However,

even if the RFA did apply to the listing

of the Nuclear Metals Inc. site (or any

of the other sites added to the NPL in

today’s rule), the statute does not

require EPA to assess the impact on

small entities which are not subject to

a rule. Motor & Equipment Mfrs. Ass’n

v. N Nichols, 142 F.3rd 449, 467 (D.C.

Cir. 1998). As discussed above, the

listing of a site on the NPL does not

apply to any small entity because it

imposes no obligations. Certainly, no

regulatory obligations are imposed on

small businesses which may be located

near a site listed in today’s final.

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). This rule

will be effective on July 16, 2001.

B. Could the Effective Date of This Final

Rule Change?

Provisions of the Congressional

Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of

CERCLA may alter the effective date of

this regulation.

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

before a rule can take effect the federal

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a report to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller

General. This report must contain a

copy of the rule, a concise general

statement relating to the rule (including

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

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

the agency’s actions relevant to

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (affecting small businesses) and the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

32240 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(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 Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to

This Final Rule?

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not an

economically significant rule as defined

by Executive Order 12866, and because

the Agency does not have reason to

believe the environmental health or

safety risks addressed by this section

present a disproportionate risk to

children.

XI. Paperwork Reduction Act

A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction

Act?

According to the Paperwork

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

seq., an agency may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to a collection of information

that requires OMB approval under the

PRA, unless it has been approved by

OMB and displays a currently valid

OMB control number. The OMB control

numbers for EPA’s regulations, after

initial display in the preamble of the

final rules, are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

The information collection requirements

related to this action have already been

approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA

under OMB control number 2070–0012

(EPA ICR No. 574).

B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Final Rule?

No. EPA has determined that the PRA

does not apply because this rule does

not contain any information collection

requirements that require approval of

the OMB.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 32241

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 13175

What Is Executive Order 13175 and Is It

Applicable to This Final Rule?

On November 6, 2000, the President

issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR

67249) entitled, ‘‘Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175

took effect on January 6, 2001, and

revokes Executive Order 13084 (Tribal

Consultation) as of that date. EPA

developed this final rule, however,

during the period when Executive Order

13084 was in effect; thus, EPA

addressed tribal considerations under

Executive Order 13084.

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA

may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or 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. The addition of sites

to the NPL will not impose any

substantial direct compliance costs on

Tribes. While 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 recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Michael H. Shapiro,

Acting 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 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 ...................... Cooper Drum Company ........................................................................ South Gate.

*******

MA ...................... Nuclear Metals, Inc ............................................................................... Concord.

*******

MA ...................... Sutton Brook Disposal Area ................................................................. Tewksbury.

*******

NM ...................... Griggs & Walnut Ground Water Plume ................................................ Las Cruces.

32242 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 115 / Thursday, June 14, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued

State Site name City/County Notes (a)

*******

NY ...................... Consolidated Iron and Metal ................................................................ Newburgh.

*******

NY ...................... Shenandoah Road Ground Water Contamination ............................... East Fishkill.

*******

OR ...................... Taylor Lumber and Treating ................................................................. Sheridan.

*******

PA ...................... Lower Darby Creek Area ...................................................................... Delaware/Philadelphia Counties.

*******

TX ....................... Malone Service Company, Inc ............................................................. Texas City.

*******

VT ....................... Elizabeth Mine ...................................................................................... Strafford.

*******

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14616 Filed 6–13–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 00–108; FCC 01–133]

RIN 4211

Broadcast Services; Radio Stations,

Television Stations

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Commission’s ‘‘dual network’’ rule.

That rule effectively prevented mergers

among the four major television

broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, Fox and

NBC) or between one of the four major

networks and the UPN and/or the WB

television networks. The action taken

eliminates that portion of the rule that

effectively prevents mergers between a

major television network and the UPN

and/or WB television networks.

DATES: Effective August 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger Holberg or Danny Bring, Mass

Media Bureau, Policy and Rules

Division, (202) 418–2120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Report and Order (R&O)

in MM Docket No. 00–108, FCC 01–133,

adopted April 19, 2001, and released

May 15, 2001. The complete text of this

document is available for inspection

and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Center,

Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC and may also be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Service (202) 857–3800, 445 12th Street,

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC.

This R&O is also available on the

Internet at the Commission’s website:

http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of Report and Order

I. Introduction

1. In this R&O we amend § 73.658(g),

the ‘‘dual network’’ rule, to permit one

of the four major television networks—

ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC—to own,

operate, maintain or control the UPN

and/or the WB television network. The

rule already permits any of the four

major television networks to own any

television network created subsequent

to the date that the Telecommunications

Act of 1996 was enacted. By this action,

we recognize that the economics of the

broadcast television network industry

have changed to the point that retention

of the rule in its current form is no

longer in the public interest.

II. Background

2. The dual network rule goes back

some sixty years. The Commission first

adopted a dual network rule in 1941,

following its investigation of ‘‘chain’’

broadcasting. The rule adopted then

mandated a flat prohibition on an entity

maintaining more than a single radio

network. As we noted in the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (‘‘NPRM’’) in this

proceeding (65 FR 41393 (July 5, 2000)),

when the Commission extended the rule

to television networks in 1946, it

determined that permitting an entity to

operate more than one network might

preclude new networks from developing

and affiliating with desirable stations.

3. Title 47 CFR 73.658(g) sets forth the

current version of the dual network rule.

It reflects the provisions of section

202(e) of the 1996 Act. That section

directed the Commission to modify its

dual network rule to prohibit a

television station from affiliating with

any entity that owns more than one of

the four major networks (ABC, CBS,

Fox, or NBC) or one of the four major

networks and an emerging Englishlanguage network which, on the date of

the 1996 Act’s enactment, ‘‘provides 4

or more hours of programming per week

on a national basis pursuant to network

affiliation arrangements with local

television broadcast stations in markets

reaching more than 75 percent of

television homes. * * *’’ The legislative

history of this provision indicated that

it was intended to apply to only the

UPN and WB television networks.

Moreover, these two networks were the

only two entities other than the four

major networks that met this definition

of a network on the relevant date. (Both

UPN and WB argue that they did not

meet the legislative definition of a

network for these purposes. We rejected

UPN’s argument in this regard in

considering the Viacom/CBS merger.

We need not reach the merits of The WB

Network’s argument in this regard given

our resolution herein, which renders its

argument moot.)

4. The current dual network rule

differs markedly from the dual network

rule that existed from 1946 to 1996. The