Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0015-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites [NPL-FRU28-1-59]
Posted Date: 2000-05-11T04:00Z

a
Thursday,
May
11,
2000
Part
I1
Environmental
ProtectionAgency
\

40
CFR
Part
300
NationalPriorities
List
forUncontrolled
HazardousWasteSites;
Final
Rule
&
ProposedRule
/
n
30482,
Federal
Register/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
..

ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
rFRL­
6603­
31
NationalPrioritiesListforUncontrolle
Hazardous
Waste
Sites
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1
h
O
("
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
CERCLA­
financed
remedial
action(
s),
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
This
rule
adds
7
new
sites
to
the
NPL;
all
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
The
effective
date
for
this
amendment
to
the
NPL
shall
be
June
12,2000.
ADDRESSES:
For
addresses
for
the
Headquarters
and
Regional
dockets,
as
well
as
further
details
on
what
these
dockets
contain,
see
Section
11,
"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?
E.
What
Is
the
NCP?
C.
What
Is
the
National
Priorities
List
D.
How
Are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NF'L?
E.
What
Happens
to
Sites
on
the
NPL?
(NPL)?
F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?
G.
How
Are
Sites
Removed
From
the
NPL?
H.
Can
Portions
of
Sites
Be
Deleted
From
I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
the
NPL
as
They
Are
Cleaned
Up?

(CCL)?
II.
Availability
of
Information
to
the
PubIic
!d
A.
Can
I
Review
the
Documents
Relevant
­
to
This
Final
Rule?
E.
What
Documehts
Are
Available
for
Review
at
the
Headquarters
Dockets?
C.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?
D.
How
Do
I
Access
the
Documents?
E.
How
Can
I
Obtain
a
Current
List
of
NPL
Sites?
111.
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?
E.
Is
This
Final
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
What
Is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(UMRA)?
E.
Does
UMRA
Auulv
to
This
Final
Rule?
VI.
Effects
on
Smalf6uknesses
A.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?
B.
Does
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Apply
to
This
Final
Rule?

the
Rule
Congress
and
the
General
Accounting
Office?
E.
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?
VII.
Possible
Changes
to
the
Effective
Date
of
A.
Has
This
Rule
Been
Submitted
to
E$,
Executive
Order
12898
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
12898?
E.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Apply
to
This
Final
Rule?
X.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13045?
E.
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
haq
revised
the
NCP
on
several
occasions.
The
most
recent
comprehensive
revision
was
on
March
8,1990
(55
FR
8666).

105(
a)(
8)(
A)
of
CERCLA,
the
NCP
also
includes
"criteria
fbr
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)?
As
required
under
section
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.
Federal
Register/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
30483
For
purposes
of
listing,
the,
NPL
dissociation
of
individuals
from
the
has
come
to
be
located,
or
from
which
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
w
o
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
o
n
e
of
sites
that
release.
that
contamination
came.
are
generally
evaluated
and
cleaned
up
EPA
determines
that
the
release
In
other
words,
while
geographic
by
EPA
(the
"General
Superfund
poses
a
significant
threat
to
public
terms
are
often
used
to
designate
the
site
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
"),
a
n
d
o
n
e
of
s
i
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
.
health.
(e.
g.,
the
"Jones
Co.
p
l
a
n
t
s
i
t
e
")
i
n
terms
owned
or
operated
by
other
Federal
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
be
more
of
the
property
owned
by
a
particular
agencies
(the
"Federal
Facilities
cost­
effective
to
use
its
remedial
party,
the
site
properly
understood
is
Section").
With
respect
to
sites
in
the
authority
than
to
use
its
removal
not
limited
to
that
property
(e.
g.,
it
may
Federal
Facilities
Section,
these
sites
are
authority
to
respond
to
the
release.
extend
beyond
the
property
due
to
generally
being
addressed
by
other
EPA
Promulgated
an
original
NPLof
contaminant
migration),
and
conversely
Federal
agencies.
Under
Executive
406
Sites
on
September
8,1983
(48
FR
may
not
occupy
the
full
extent
of
the
Order
12580
(52
FR
2923,
January
29,
40658).
The
NpL
has
been
property
(e.
g.,
where
there
are
1987)
and
CERCLA
section
120,
each
Since
then,
most
On
4~
uncontaminated
parts
of
the
identified
Federal
agency
is
responsible
for
2000
(65`
FR
5435).
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
t
h
e
y
m
a
y
n
o
t
be,
strictly
carrying
out
most
response
actions
at
E.
What
Happens
to
Sites
on
the
NPL?
speaking,
part
of
the
"site").
The
"site"
facilities
under
its
by
custody,
or
control,
although
EPA
is
A
site
may
undergo
action
the
boundaries
of
any
specific
property
responsible
for
preparihg
an
,HRS
score
financed
by
the
Trust
Fund
established
that
may
give
the
site
its
name,
and
the
and
determining
whether
the
facility
is
under
as
the
CERCLA
(commonly
only
after
referred
it
is
to
name
itself
should
not
be
read
to
imply
the
lead
agency
at
Federal
Facilities
NCP
at
4o
CFR
3oo.
425cb)(
l).
entire
area
within
the
property
Section
sites,
and
its
role
at
such
sites
("
Remedial
actions,,
are
those
boundary
of
the
installation
or
plant.
is
accordingly
less
extensive
of
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
other
sites.
taken
instead
of
or
in
addition
to
D.
How
Are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NPL?
removal
actions
*
*
*
.
"
42
U.
S.
C.
listing.
Also,
the
site
name
is
merely
9601(
24).)
However,
under
40
CFR
used
to
help
identify
the
geographic
There
are
t
h
r
e
e
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
s
for
location
of
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
.
For
placing
sites
on
the
NPL
for
possible
"does
not
imply
that
monies
will
be
300.425(
b)(
2)
placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
example,
the
name
Go.
plant
remedial
action
(see
40
CFR
300.425(
c)
expended,,,
EPA
may
pursue
site,"
does
not
imply
that
the
Jones
of
the
NCP):
(1)
A
site
may
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
is
responsible
for
the
on
the
NPL
if
it
scores
sufficiently
high
~~~~~~a
~c
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
contamination
located
on
the
plant
site.
on
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(`
'HRS"
1,
under
CERCLA
and
other
laws,
EPA
regulations
provide
that
the
which
EPA
promulgated
as
appendix
A
"nature
and
extent
of
the
problem
of
the
NCP
(40
CFR
part
300).
The
HRS
F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?
presented
by
the
release"
will
be
serves
as
a
screening
device
to
evaluate
The
NPL
does
not
describe
releases
in
determined
by
a
remedial
investigation/
the
relative
potential
of
uncontrolled
precise
geographical
terms;
it
would
be
feasibility
study
(RI/
FS)
as
more
hazardous
substances
to
pose
a
threat
to
neither
feasible
nor
consistent
with
the
information
is
developed
on
site
human
health
or
the
environment.
On
limited
purpose
ofthe
NPL
(to
identify
contamination
(40
CFR
300.5).
During
December
14,
1990
(55
FR
51532),
EPA
releases
that
are
for
further
the
RI/
FS
process,
the
release
may
be
promulgated
revisions
to
the
HRS
p.
art1y
evaluation),
for
it
to
do
so.
found
to
be
lyger
or
smaller
than
was
in
response
to
CERCLA
Section
105(~),
Although
a
CERCLA
``
facility''
is
originally
thought,
as
more
is
learned
added
by
SARA.
The
revised
HRS
broadly
defined
to
include
any
area
about
the
source(
s)
and
the
migration
of
evaluates
four
pathways:
ground
water,
where
a
hazardous
substance
release
has
the
contamination.
However,
this
surface
water,
soil
exposure,
and
air.
AS
"come
to
be
located"
(CERCLA
section
inquiry
focuses
on
an
evaluation
of
the
a
matter
of
Agency
policy,
those
sites
101(
9)),
the
listing
process
itself
is
not
threat
posed;
the
boundaries
of
the
placed
On
the
NPL*
generally
is
not
placed
on
the
NPL,
as
provided
in
the
that
this
site
is
coextensive
with
the
,
"consistent
with
permanent
remedy,
are
typically
not
known
at
the
time
of
that
score
28.50
or
greater
on
the
HRS
intended
to
define
or
reflect
the
release
need
not
be
exactly
defined.

1
are
eligible
for
the
NPL;
(2)
Each
State
boundaries
of
such
facilities
or
releases.
Moreover,
it
generally
is
impossible
to
may
designate
a
single
site
as
its
top
'
Of
cowse,
HRS
data
(if
the
HRS
is
used
discover`
the
full
extent
of
where
the
priority
to
be
listed
on
the
NPL,
to
list
a
site)
upon
which
the
NPL
contamination
"has
come
to
be
located"
regardless
of
the
HRS
score.
This
placement
was
based
will,
to
some
before
all
necessary
studies
and
mechanism,
provided
by
the
NCP
at
40
extent,
describe
the
release(
s)
at
issue.
remedial
work
are
completed
at
a
site.
CFR
300.425(~)(
2)
requires
that,
to
the
That
is,
the
NPL
site
would
include
all
Indeed,
the
known
boundaries
of
the
extent
practicable,
the
NPL
include
releases
evaluated
as
part
of
that
HRS
contamination
can
be
expected
to
w
i
J
h
i
n
t
h
e
1
0
0
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
p
r
i
o
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
o
n
e
a
n
a
l
sis.
change
over
time.
T
h
u
s
,
i
n
most
cases,
facility
designated
by
each
State
wxen
a
site
is
listed,
the
approach
it
may
be
impossible
to
describe
the
representing
the
greatest
danger
to
generally
used
to
describe
the
relevant
boundaries
of
a
release
with
absolute
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
release(
s)
is
to
delineate
a
geographical
certainty.
environment
among
known
facilities
in
area
(usually
the
area
within
an
Further,
as
noted
above,
NPL
listing
'\

the
State
(see
42
U3.
c.
96o5(
aI(
8)(
B));
installation
or
plant
boundaries)
and
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
(3)
The
third
mechanism
for
listing,
identify
the
site
by
reference
to
that
included
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
j
300.425(~)(
3),
allows
certain
sites
to
be
coextensive
with
that
area,
and
the
liable
for
releases
on
discrete
parcels
of
listed
regardless
of
their
HRS
score,
if
boundaries
of
the
installation
or
plant
property,
supporting
information
can
be
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
are
not
the
"boundaries"
of
the
site,
submitted
to
the
Agency
at
any
time
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
of
the
contaminated
areas
within
the
area
used
potentially
responsible
party.
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
to
identify
the
site,
as
well
as
any
other
For
these
reasons,
the,
NPL
need
not
health
advisory
that
recommends
location
to
which
that
contamination
be
amended
as
further
research
reveals
area.
As
a
legal
matter,
the
site
is
not
Thus,
if
a
party
does
not
believe
it
is
0
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
Rather,
the
site
consists
of
all
after
a
party
receives
notice
it
is
a
more
information
about
the
location
of
the
oontamination
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;

financed
response
has
been
implemented
and
no
further
response
action
is
required;
or
(iii)
The
remedial
investigation
has
shown
the
release
poses
no
significant
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment,
and
taking
of
remedial
measures
is
not
appropriate.
As
of
April
27,2000,
the
Agency
has
deleted
212,
sites
from
the
NPL.
H.
Can
Portions
of
Sites
Be
Deleted
(ii)
All
appropriate
Superfund­

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
April
27,
2000,
EPA
has
deleted
portions
of
18
sites.

I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(CCL)?

,construction
completion
list
("
CCL,
')
to
simplify
its
system
of
categorizing
sites
successful
completion
of
cleanup
activities
(58
FR
L2142,
March
2,
1993).
Inclusion
of
a
site
on
the
CCL
has
no
legal
significance.
Sites
qualify
for
the
CCL
when:
(1)
Any
necessary
physical
construction
is
complete,
whether
or
not
final
cleanup
levels
or
other
requirements
have
been
achieved;
(2)
EPA
has
determined
that
the
response
action
should
be
limited
to
measures
that
do
not
involve
construction
(e.
g.,
institutional
controls);
or
(3)
the
site
qualifies
for
deletion
from
the
NPL.
Of
the
212
sites
that
have
been
deleted
from
the
NPL,
203
sites
were
deleted
because
they
have
been
cleaned
up
(the.
other
9
sites
were
deleted
based
on
deferral
to
other
authorities
and
are
not
considered
cleaned
up).
As
of
April
27,
2000,
there
are
a
total
of
685
sites
mythe
CCL.
This
total
includes
the
212
EPA
also
h&
s
developed
an
NPL
~

~

and
to
better
communicate
the
I
deleted
sites,
For
the
most
up­
to­
date
information
on
the
CCL,
see
EPA's
Internet
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund.
11.
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
Aaencv's
resDonses
to
those
comments.
Ben
Conetta,
Region
2
(NJ,
NY,
PR,
VI],
U.
S.
EPA,
290
Broadway,
New
York,
NY
10007­
1866;
21216374435
Dawn
Shellenberger
(GCI),
Region
3
(DE,
DC,
MD,
PA,
VA,
WV).
US.
EPA,
Library,
1650
Arch
Street,
Mailcode
3PM52,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103;
2151
814­
5364
i
Joellen
O'Neill,
Region
4
(AL,
FL,
GA,
KY,
MS,
NC,
SC,­
TN),
U.
S.
EPA,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
9th
floor,
Atlanta,

Region
5
(IL,
IN,
MI,
MN,
OH,
WI),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Wqste,
Management
Division
7­
J,
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
IL
60604;
312/

Brenda
Cook,
Region
6
(AR,
LA,
NM,
OK,
TX),
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mailcode
6SF­
RA,
Dallas,

Carole
Long,
Region
7
(IA,
KS,
MO,
NE),
U.
S.
EPA,
901
North
5th
Street,
Kansas
City,
KS
66101;
9131551­
7224
David
Williams,
Region
8
(CO,
MT,
N
D
,
SD,
UT,
WY),
U.
S.
EPA,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Mailcode
8EPR­
SA,
Denver,
CO
80202­
2466;
303/
312­
6757
GA
30303;
4041562­
8127
886­
7570
TX
75202­
2733;
214/
665­
7436
in
the
"SuGport
eocument
for
the
Revised
National
Priorities
List
Final
Rule­
May
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
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.

for
the
EPA
Headquarters:
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
EPA
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
Crystal
Gateway
#1,
1st
Floor,
1235
Jefferson
Davis
Highway,
Arlington,
VA,
7031603­
8917.
The
contact
information
for
the
Regional
dockets
is
as
follows:
Barbara
Callahan,
Region
1
(CT,
ME,
­
documents
are
available
only
in
the
Following
is
the
contact
information
MA,
NH,
RI,
VT),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Mailcode
HSC,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA
02114­
2023;
6171918­
1356
N
V
;
AS,
Go],
US.­
EPA,
75.
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105;
4151
744­
2343
Robert
Phillips,
Region
10
(AK,
ID,
OR,
WA),
U.
S.
EPA,
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECL­
115,
Seattle,

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.
govlsuperfund1
(look
under
site
information
category)
or
by
contacting
the
Superfund
Docket
(see
contact
information
above).
111.
Contents
of
This
Final
Rule
A.
Additions
to
the
NPL
all
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL.
Table
1
presents
the
7
sites
in
the
Gederal
Superfund
Section.
Sites
in
the
table
are
arranged
alphabetically
by
State.
WA
98101;
2061553­
6699
This
final
rule
adds
7
sites
to
the
NPL;

TABLE
1
.­
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
FINAL
RULE,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Citykounty
Site
name
AR
.....
Reader.
Ouachita
Nevada
Wood
Treater.
CA
.....
LeviathanMine
...
Callaway
&
Son
FL
...._.
AlpineCounty.
LakeAlfred.
Drum
Service.
FL
......
Landia
Chemical
Lakeland.
Company.

i
I*­*­
""",,.*,"
a~­
­
.
n_,**
A,"
L_
"­
r_^

Federal
Register/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
30485
TABLE
1
.­
NATIONAL
PRI.
ORITIES
LIST
FINAL
RULE,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION­
Continued
State
,

NY
.....

UT
.....

WA
....
Site
name
OldRoosevelt
FieldContami­
nated
Ground
Water
Area.
Intermountain
Waste
Oil
Re­
finery.
MidniteMine
.......
Citykounty
Garden
City.

Bountiful.

Wellpinit.

Numberof
Sites
AddedtotheGeneral
Superfund
Section:
7.

B.
Status
of
NPL
With
the
7
new
sites
added
to
the
NPL
in
today's
final
rule;
the
NPL
now
contains
1,227
final
sites;
1,068
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
159
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
With
a
separate
rule
(published'elsewhere
in
today's
Federal
Register]
proposing
to
add
14
new
sites
to
the
NPL,
there
are
noTN
62
sites
proposed
and
awaiting
final
agency
action,
55
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
7
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
tota1?,
289.
(These
numbers
reflect
the
status
of
sites
as
of
April
27,
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
Midnite
Mine
site
was
proposed
on
February
16,
1999
(64
FR
7564).
The
Intermountain
Waste
Oil
Refinery
site
and
the
Leviathan
Mine
site
were
proposed
on
October
22,1999
(64
FR
56992).
The
following
sites
were
proposed
on
February
4,
2000
(65
FR
5435):
Ouachita
Nevada
Wood
Treater,
Callaway
&
Son
Drum
Service,
Landia
Chemical
Company,
and
Old
Roosevelt
Field
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Area.
For
Ouachita
Nevada
Wood
Treater,
Callaway
&
Son
Drum
Service,
Landia
Chemical
Company,
and,
Old
Roo,
sevelt
Field
Contaminated
Ground
Water
Area
sites,
EPA
received
no
comments
affecting
the
HRS
scoring
of
these
sites
and
therefore,
EPA
is
placing
them
on
the
final
NPL
at
this
time.

comments
received
on
the
other
sites.
EPA's
responses
to
site­
specific
public
comments
are
addressed
in
the
"Support
Document
for
the
Revised
2000".
EPA
responded
to
all
relevant
n
National
Priorities
List
Final
Rule­
May
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
12866?

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
actioqtaken
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
OrdeG
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
I1
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(UMRA),
Public
Law
104­
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
Agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"Federal,
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
EPA
promulgates
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives*
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
Under
Executive
Order
12866
(58
FR
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administratpr
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?
\

I
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
30486
Federal'
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
.
,­

a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
VII.
Possible
Changes
to
the
Effective
describes
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
Date
of
the
Rule
entities
(Le.,
small
businesses,
small
A.
Has
This
Rule
Been
Submitted
to
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
the
rule
will
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
entities.
SBREFA
amended
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
Federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
agency
promulgating
the
must
,
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
number
of
small
entities.
of
the
United
States.
EPA
has
submitted
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
B.
Does
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
Apply
t
o
T
h
i
s
Final
Rule?
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
an
NPL
revision
is
not
a
typical
No.
While
this
rule
revises
the
NPL,
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register,
A
"major
rule"
regulatory
change
since
it
does
not
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
automatically
impose
costs.
As
stated
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
above,
adding
sites
to
the
NPL
does
not
This
rule
is
not
a
g
~~~j
~~
rule"
as
in
itself
require
any
action
by
any
party,
defined
by
5
u
.s
.~,
804(
2),

party
for
the
cost
of
cleanup
at
the
site.
B.
Could
the
Effective
Date
O
f
This
Fin
Further,
no
identifiable
groups
are
Rule
Change?
affected
as
a
whole.
As
a
consequence,
Provisions
of
the
Congressional
impacts
on
any
group
are
hard
to
Review
Act
(CkA)
or
section
305
of
predict.
A
site's
inclusion
on
the
NPL
CERCLA
may
alter
the
effective
date
of
could
increase
the
likelihood
of
adverse
this
regulation.
impacts
on
responsible
parties
(in
the
Under
the
CRA,
5
U.
S.
C.
801(
a),
form
of
cleanup
costs),
but
at
this
time
before
a
rule
can
take
effect
the
federal
EPA
cannot
identify
the
potentially
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
affected
businesses
or
estimate
the
submit
a
report
to
each
House
of
the
number
of
small
businesses
that
might
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
also
be
affected.
General.
This
report
must
contain
a
The
Agency
does
expect
that
placing
Of
the
a
concise
general
the
sites
in
this
rule
on
the
NPL
could
statement
relating
to
the
rule
(including
significantly
affect
certain.
industries,
or
whethec
it
is
a
major
rule),
a
COPY
of
the
firms
within
industries,
that
have
cost­
benefit
analysis
of
the
rule
(if
any),
caused
a
proportionately
high
the
agency's
actions
relevant
to
percentage
of
waste
site
problems.
provisions
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
However,
EPA
does
not
expect
the
Act
(affecting
small
businesses]
and
the
listing
of
these
sites
to
have
a
significant
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
Of
lgg5
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
(describing
unfunded
federal
number
of
small
businesses.
requirements
imposed
on
state
and
local
organizations,
and
governmental
Congress
a
n
d
t
h
e
General
Accounting
Office?

Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
I
nor
does
it
determine
the
liability
of
any
In
any
case,
economic
impacts
and
any
other
relevant
information
or
governments
and
the
private
sector),

Occur
only
through
enforcement
and
\
requirements
and
any
relevant
cost­
recovery
actions,
which
EPA
takes
Executive
Orders.
at
it's
discretion
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.
EPA
has
submitted
a
report
under
the
EPA
considers
manykactors
when
CRA
for
thi6
rule.
The
rule
will
take
determining
enforcement
actions,
effect,
as
provided
by
law,
within
30
including
not
only
a
firm's
contribution
days
of
publication
of
this
document,
to
the
problem,
but
also
its
ability
to
,
since
it
is
not
a
major
rule.
Section
pay*
The
impacts
(from
cost
recovery)
804(
2)
defines
a
major
rule
as
any
rule
<'
On
governmen
and
nonprofit
that
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
organizations
would
`i,
'
e
determined
on
a
Information
and
Regulatory
~f
f
~i
~~
similar
case­
by­
case
basis.
(OIRA)
of
the
Office
of
Management
and
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
I
hereby
Budget
(OMB)
finds
has
resulted
in
or
certify
that
this
rule,
if
promulgated,
is
likely
to
result
in:
an
annual
effect
on
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
the
economy
of$~
OO,
OOO,
OOO
or
more;
a
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
major
increase
in
costs
or
prices
for
entities.
Therefore,
this
regulation
does
consumers,
individual
industries,
not
require
a
regulatory
flexibility
Federal,
State,
or
local
government
analysis.
agencies,
or
geographic
regions;
or
significant
adverse
effects
on
competition,
employment,
investment,
productivity,
innovation,
or
on
the
ability
of
Unit,
ed
States­
based
enterprises
to
compete
with
foreign­
based
enterprises
in
domest,
ic
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
y
l
e
s
after
this
report
is
submitted.
C.
What
Could
Cause
the
Effective
Date
of
This
Rule
to
Change?
Under
5
U.
S.
C.
801(
b)(
l)
a
rule
shall
spot
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
Universiv
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
>
Federal
Register/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
30487
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
adadverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
all
people
live
in
clean
and
i
sustainable
communities.
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
considered
by
the
Agency.
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
'.
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
B.
`Does
Executive
Order
13b45
Apply
tOcomDliance
costs
incurred
bv
state
and
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
environmeqtal
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?

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
"
­

According
to
the
Paperwork
B.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Amlv
torequirements
that
require
approval
of
not
contain­
aGy
information
collection
"
..
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.
Execdtive
Order
13045
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13045?

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)
co'ncerns
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
sgfety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children,
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
Executive
Order
13045:
"Protection
of
the
OMB
.
XII.
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
What
Are
the
Executive
Orders
on
"

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
locai
govemments,
or
EPA
cbnsults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulati,
on.
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.

federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
nafional
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
areamble
to
the
This
final
rule
does
not
have
prior
consultition
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
"to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
`communities."
This
rule
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments
because
it
does
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.
Accordingly,
the
requirements
of
section
3(
b)
of
T"
30488
Federal
Rep;
ister/
Vol.
65,
No.
92
/Thursday,
May
11,
2000
/Rules
and
Regulations
~~
~~

Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
Dated:
May
3,2000.
Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
c)(
2);
42
U.
S.
C.
this
rule.
Timothy
Fields,
Jr.,
9601­
9657;
E.
0.12777,
56
FR
54757,
3
CFR,

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
part
300
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
1991
Comp.,
p.
351;
E.
O.
12580,!
52
FR
2923,
3
CFR,
1987
Comp.,
p.
193.

pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
40CFR
part
300
is
amended
as
2.
Table
1
of
Appendix
B
to
Part
300
substances,
Hazardous
waste,
follows:
i
s
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
by
a
d
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
following
Intergovernmental
relations,
Natural
sites
in
alphabetical
order
to
read
as
resources,
Oil
pollution,
Penalties,
PART
300­[
AMENDED]
follows:
and
Emergency
Response.
Environmental
protection,
Air
Reporting
andrecordkeeping
requirements,
Superfund,
Water
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
300
Appendix
€3
to
Part
300­
IVational
pollution
control,
Water
supply.
continues
to
read
as
follows:
Priorities
List
TABLE
1
.­
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
(a)

*
t
,
*
AR
................
OuachitaNevadaWoodTreater
..................................................................
Reader.

CA
................
LeviathanMine
............................................................................................
AlpineCounty.

/*
FL
.................
Callaway
&
Son
Drum
Service
....................................................................
LakeAlfred.

FL
.................
LandiaChemicalCompany
..........................................................................

*
*
NY
................
Old
RooseveltFieldContaminatedGroundWaterArea
.............................

UT
................
IntermountainWaste
Oil
Refinery
................................................................

WA
...............
MidniteMine
................................................................................................
\

*
Lakeland.

GardenCity.

Bountiful.

*
Wellpinit.

(a)
A=
Based
on
issuance
of
health
advisory
by
Agency
for
Toxic
Substance
and
Disease
Registry
(if
scored,
HRS
score
need
not
be
5:
28.50).
C=
Sites
on
construction
completion
list.
S=
State
top
priority
(included
among
the
100
toppriority
sites
regardless
of
score).
P=
Sites
with
partial
deletion(
s).

[FR
Doc.
00­
11562
Filed
5­
10­
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
Pi