46096
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
hydrocarbons
are
first
produced,
through
and
including
the
last
valve
and
associated
safety
equipment
(
e.
g.,
pressure
safety
sensors)
on
the
last
production
facility
on
the
OCS.
(
7)
Any
producer
operating
a
pipeline
that
connects
facilities
on
the
OCS
must
comply
with
this
subpart.
(
8)
Any
operator
of
a
pipeline
that
has
a
valve
on
the
OCS
downstream
(
landward)
of
the
last
production
facility
may
ask
in
writing
that
the
MMS
Regional
Supervisor
recognize
that
valve
as
the
last
point
MMS
will
exercise
its
regulatory
authority.
(
9)
A
pipeline
segment
is
not
subject
to
MMS
regulations
for
design,
construction,
operation,
and
maintenance
if:
(
i)
It
is
downstream
(
generally
shoreward)
of
the
last
valve
and
associated
safety
equipment
on
the
last
production
facility
on
the
OCS;
and
(
ii)
It
is
subject
to
regulation
under
49
CFR
parts
192
and
195.
(
10)
DOT
may
inspect
all
upstream
safety
equipment
(
including
valves,
over­
pressure
protection
devices,
cathodic
protection
equipment,
and
pigging
devices,
etc.)
that
serve
to
protect
the
integrity
of
DOT­
regulated
pipeline
segments.
(
11)
OCS
pipeline
segments
not
subject
to
DOT
regulation
under
49
CFR
parts
192
and
195
are
subject
to
all
MMS
regulations.
(
12)
A
producer
may
request
that
its
pipeline
operate
under
DOT
regulations
governing
pipeline
design,
construction,
operation,
and
maintenance.
(
i)
The
operator's
request
must
be
in
the
form
of
a
written
petition
to
the
MMS
Regional
Supervisor
that
states
the
justification
for
the
pipeline
to
operate
under
DOT
regulation.
(
ii)
The
Regional
Supervisor
will
decide,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
whether
to
grant
the
operator's
request.
In
considering
each
petition,
the
Regional
Supervisor
will
consult
with
the
Office
of
Pipeline
Safety
(
OPS)
Regional
Director.
(
13)
A
transporter
who
operates
a
pipeline
regulated
by
DOT
may
request
to
operate
under
MMS
regulations
governing
pipeline
operation
and
maintenance.
Any
subsequent
repairs
or
modifications
will
also
be
subject
to
MMS
regulations
governing
design
and
construction.
(
i)
The
operator's
request
must
be
in
the
form
of
a
written
petition
to
the
OPS
Regional
Director
and
the
MMS
Regional
Supervisor.
(
ii)
The
MMS
Regional
Supervisor
and
the
OPS
Regional
Director
will
decide
how
to
act
on
this
petition.
*
*
*
*
*
3.
In
§
250.1001,
the
definition
for
the
term
``
DOI
pipelines''
is
revised
and
the
definitions
for
the
terms
``
DOT
pipelines,''
and
``
production
facility''
are
added
in
alphabetical
order
as
follows:

§
250.1001
Definitions.

*
*
*
*
*
DOI
pipelines
include:
(
1)
Producer­
operated
pipelines
extending
upstream
(
generally
seaward)
from
each
point
on
the
OCS
at
which
operating
responsibility
transfers
from
a
producing
operator
to
a
transporting
operator;
(
2)
Producer­
operated
pipelines
extending
upstream
(
generally
seaward)
of
the
last
valve
(
including
associated
safety
equipment)
on
the
last
production
facility
on
the
OCS
that
do
not
connect
to
a
transporter­
operated
pipeline
on
the
OCS
before
crossing
into
State
waters;
(
3)
Producer­
operated
pipelines
connecting
production
facilities
on
the
OCS;
(
4)
Transporter­
operated
pipelines
that
DOI
and
DOT
have
agreed
are
to
be
regulated
as
DOI
pipelines;
and
(
5)
All
OCS
pipelines
not
subject
to
regulation
under
49
CFR
parts
192
and
195.
DOT
pipelines
include:
(
1)
Transporter­
operated
pipelines
currently
operated
under
DOT
requirements
governing
design,
construction,
maintenance,
and
operation;
(
2)
Producer­
operated
pipelines
that
DOI
and
DOT
have
agreed
are
to
be
regulated
under
DOT
requirements
governing
design,
construction,
maintenance,
and
operation;
and
(
3)
Producer­
operated
pipelines
downstream
(
generally
shoreward)
of
the
last
valve
(
including
associated
safety
equipment)
on
the
last
production
facility
on
the
OCS
that
do
not
connect
to
a
transporter­
operated
pipeline
on
the
OCS
before
crossing
into
State
waters
and
that
are
regulated
under
49
CFR
parts
192
and
195.
*
*
*
*
*
Production
facilities
means
OCS
facilities
that
receive
hydrocarbon
production
either
directly
from
wells
or
from
other
facilities
that
produce
hydrocarbons
from
wells.
They
may
include
processing
equipment
for
treating
the
production
or
separating
it
into
its
various
liquid
and
gaseous
components
before
transporting
it
to
shore.
*
*
*
*
*

[
FR
Doc.
00
 
18802
Filed
7
 
26
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4310
 
MR
 
U
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[
FRL
 
6841
 
3]

National
Priorities
List
for
Uncontrolled
Hazardous
Waste
Sites
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(``
CERCLA''
or
``
the
Act''),
as
amended,
requires
that
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(``
NCP'')
include
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
National
Priorities
List
(``
NPL'')
constitutes
this
list.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA''
or
``
the
Agency'')
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
public
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
the
site
and
to
determine
what
CERCLAfinanced
remedial
action(
s),
if
any,
may
be
appropriate.
This
rule
adds
12
new
sites
to
the
NPL;
11
sites
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL
and
one
site
to
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
The
effective
date
for
this
amendment
to
the
NCP
shall
be
August
28,
2000.
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?

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
16:
01
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
27JYR1
46097
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
13084
What
is
Executive
Order
13084
and
is
it
Applicable
to
this
Final
Rule?

I.
Background
A.
What
Are
CERCLA
and
SARA?
In
1980,
Congress
enacted
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
9601
 
9675
(``
CERCLA''
or
``
the
Act''),
in
response
to
the
dangers
of
uncontrolled
releases
of
hazardous
substances.
CERCLA
was
amended
on
October
17,
1986,
by
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
(``
SARA''),
Public
Law
99
 
499,
100
Stat.
1613
et
seq.

B.
What
Is
the
NCP?

To
implement
CERCLA,
EPA
promulgated
the
revised
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(``
NCP''),
40
CFR
part
300,
on
July
16,
1982
(
47
FR
31180),
pursuant
to
CERCLA
section
105
and
Executive
Order
12316
(
46
FR
42237,
August
20,
1981).
The
NCP
sets
guidelines
and
procedures
for
responding
to
releases
and
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
under
CERCLA.
EPA
has
revised
the
NCP
on
several
occasions.
The
most
recent
comprehensive
revision
was
on
March
8,
1990
(
55
FR
8666).
As
required
under
section
105(
a)(
8)(
A)
of
CERCLA,
the
NCP
also
includes
``
criteria
for
determining
priorities
among
releases
or
threatened
releases
throughout
the
United
States
for
the
purpose
of
taking
remedial
action
and,
to
the
extent
practicable,
taking
into
account
the
potential
urgency
of
such
action
for
the
purpose
of
taking
removal
action.''
(``
Removal''
actions
are
defined
broadly
and
include
a
wide
range
of
actions
taken
to
study,
clean
up,
prevent
or
otherwise
address
releases
and
threatened
releases
42
U.
S.
C.
9601(
23).)

C.
What
Is
the
National
Priorities
List
(
NPL)?

The
NPL
is
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
list,
which
is
appendix
B
of
the
NCP
(
40
CFR
part
300),
was
required
under
section
105(
a)(
8)(
B)
of
CERCLA,
as
amended
by
SARA.
Section
105(
a)(
8)(
B)
defines
the
NPL
as
a
list
of
``
releases''
and
the
highest
priority
``
facilities''
and
requires
that
the
NPL
be
revised
at
least
annually.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
EPA
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
public
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
a
release
of
hazardous
substances.
The
NPL
is
only
of
limited
significance,
however,
as
it
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
Neither
does
placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
mean
that
any
remedial
or
removal
action
necessarily
need
be
taken.
For
purposes
of
listing,
the
NPL
includes
two
sections,
one
of
sites
that
are
generally
evaluated
and
cleaned
up
by
EPA
(
the
``
General
Superfund
Section''),
and
one
of
sites
that
are
owned
or
operated
by
other
Federal
agencies
(
the
``
Federal
Facilities
Section'').
With
respect
to
sites
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section,
these
sites
are
generally
being
addressed
by
other
Federal
agencies.
Under
Executive
Order
12580
(
52
FR
2923,
January
29,
1987)
and
CERCLA
section
120,
each
Federal
agency
is
responsible
for
carrying
out
most
response
actions
at
facilities
under
its
own
jurisdiction,
custody,
or
control,
although
EPA
is
responsible
for
preparing
an
HRS
score
and
determining
whether
the
facility
is
placed
on
the
NPL.
EPA
generally
is
not
the
lead
agency
at
Federal
Facilities
Section
sites,
and
its
role
at
such
sites
is
accordingly
less
extensive
than
at
other
sites.

D.
How
Are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NPL?

There
are
three
mechanisms
for
placing
sites
on
the
NPL
for
possible
remedial
action
(
see
40
CFR
300.425(
c)
of
the
NCP):
(
1)
A
site
may
be
included
on
the
NPL
if
it
scores
sufficiently
high
on
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(``
HRS''),
which
EPA
promulgated
as
appendix
A
of
the
NCP
(
40
CFR
part
300).
The
HRS
serves
as
a
screening
device
to
evaluate
the
relative
potential
of
uncontrolled
hazardous
substances
to
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
On
December
14,
1990
(
55
FR
51532),
EPA
promulgated
revisions
to
the
HRS
partly
in
response
to
CERCLA
section
105(
c),
added
by
SARA.
The
revised
HRS
evaluates
four
pathways:
ground
water,
surface
water,
soil
exposure,
and
air.
As
a
matter
of
Agency
policy,
those
sites
that
score
28.50
or
greater
on
the
HRS
are
eligible
for
the
NPL;
(
2)
Each
State
may
designate
a
single
site
as
its
top
priority
to
be
listed
on
the
NPL,
regardless
of
the
HRS
score.
This
mechanism,
provided
by
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)(
2)
requires
that,
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
NPL
include
within
the
100
highest
priorities,
one
facility
designated
by
each
State
representing
the
greatest
danger
to
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
among
known
facilities
in
the
State
(
see
42
U.
S.
C.
9605(
a)(
8)(
B));
(
3)
The
third
mechanism
for
listing,
included
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)(
3),
allows
certain
sites
to
be
listed
regardless
of
their
HRS
score,
if
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
·
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(
ATSDR)
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
health
advisory
that
recommends
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46098
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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
May
11,
2000
(
65
FR
30482).

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
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
July
10,
2000,
the
Agency
has
deleted
213
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
July
10,
2000,
EPA
has
deleted
portions
of
19
sites.

I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(
CCL)?
EPA
also
has
developed
an
NPL
construction
completion
list
(``
CCL'')
to
simplify
its
system
of
categorizing
sites
and
to
better
communicate
the
successful
completion
of
cleanup
activities
(
58
FR
12142,
March
2,
1993).
Inclusion
of
a
site
on
the
CCL
has
no
legal
significance.
Sites
qualify
for
the
CCL
when:
(
1)
Any
necessary
physical
construction
is
complete,
whether
or
not
final
cleanup
levels
or
other
requirements
have
been
achieved;
(
2)
EPA
has
determined
that
the
response
action
should
be
limited
to
measures
that
do
not
involve
construction
(
e.
g.,
institutional
controls);
or
(
3)
the
site
qualifies
for
deletion
from
the
NPL.
Of
the
213
sites
that
have
been
deleted
from
the
NPL,
203
sites
were
deleted
because
they
have
been
cleaned
up
(
the
other
10
sites
were
deleted
based
on
deferral
to
other
authorities
and
are
not
considered
cleaned
up).
As
of
July
10,
2000,
there
are
a
total
of
689
sites
on
the
CCL.
This
total
includes
the
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46099
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
213
deleted
sites.
For
the
most
up­
todate
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
 
July
2000.''

C.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?
The
Regional
dockets
contain
all
the
information
in
the
Headquarters
docket,
plus
the
actual
reference
documents
containing
the
data
principally
relied
upon
by
EPA
in
calculating
or
evaluating
the
HRS
score
for
the
sites
located
in
their
Region.
These
reference
documents
are
available
only
in
the
Regional
dockets.

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:
Barbara
Callahan,
Region
1
(
CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
RI,
VT),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Mailcode
HSC,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA
02114
 
2023;
617/
918
 
1356
Ben
Conetta,
Region
2
(
NJ,
NY,
PR,
VI),
U.
S.
EPA,
290
Broadway,
New
York,
NY
10007
 
1866;
212/
637
 
4435
Dawn
Shellenberger
(
GCI),
Region
3
(
DE,
DC,
MD,
PA,
VA,
WV),
U.
S.
EPA,
Library,
1650
Arch
Street,
Mailcode
3PM52,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103;
215/
814
 
5364
Joellen
O'Neill,
Region
4
(
AL,
FL,
GA,
KY,
MS,
NC,
SC,
TN),
U.
S.
EPA,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
9th
floor,
Atlanta,
GA
30303;
404/
562
 
8127
Region
5
(
IL,
IN,
MI,
MN,
OH,
WI),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Waste
Management
Division
7
 
J,
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
IL
60604;
312/
886
 
7570
Brenda
Cook,
Region
6
(
AR,
LA,
NM,
OK,
TX),
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mailcode
6SF
 
RA,
Dallas,
TX
75202
 
2733;
214/
665
 
7436
Carole
Long,
Region
7
(
IA,
KS,
MO,
NE),
U.
S.
EPA,
901
North
5th
Street,
Kansas
City,
KS
66101;
913/
551
 
7224
David
Williams,
Region
8
(
CO,
MT,
ND,
SD,
UT,
WY),
U.
S.
EPA,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Mailcode
8EPR
 
SA,
Denver,
CO
80202
 
2466;
303/
312
 
6757
Carolyn
Douglas,
Region
9
(
AZ,
CA,
HI,
NV,
AS,
GU),
U.
S.
EPA,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105;
415/
744
 
2343
Robert
Phillips,
Region
10
(
AK,
ID,
OR,
WA),
U.
S.
EPA,
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECL
 
115,
Seattle,
WA
98101;
206/
553
 
6699
E.
How
Can
I
Obtain
a
Current
List
of
NPL
Sites?

You
may
obtain
a
current
list
of
NPL
sites
via
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund/
(
look
under
site
information
category)
or
by
contacting
the
Superfund
Docket
(
see
contact
information
above).

III.
Contents
of
This
Final
Rule
A.
Addition
to
the
NPL
This
final
rule
adds
12
sites
to
the
NPL;
11
sites
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL
and
one
site
to
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Table
1
presents
the
11
sites
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
Table
2
presents
the
site
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Sites
in
the
table
are
arranged
alphabetically
by
State.

TABLE
1.
 
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
FINAL
RULE,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
CT
..................
Scovill
Industrial
Landfill
..........................................................................................................................
Waterbury.
FL
..................
Southern
Solvents,
Inc.
...........................................................................................................................
Tampa.
LA
..................
Mallard
Bay
Landing
Bulk
Plant
..............................................................................................................
Grand
Cheniere.
MO
.................
Newton
County
Wells
..............................................................................................................................
Newton
County.
MS
.................
Davis
Timber
Company
..........................................................................................................................
Hattiesburg.
OK
.................
Imperial
Refining
Company
.....................................................................................................................
Ardmore.
TX
..................
Palmer
Barge
Line
..................................................................................................................................
Port
Arthur.
TX
..................
Star
Lake
Canal
......................................................................................................................................
Port
Neches.
UT
..................
International
Smelting
and
Refining
........................................................................................................
Tooele.
WA
.................
Hamilton/
Labree
Roads
Ground
Water
Contamination
..........................................................................
Chehalis.
WV
.................
Big
John
Salvage
 
Hoult
Road
..............................................................................................................
Fairmont.

Number
of
Sites
Added
to
the
General
Superfund
Section:
11.

TABLE
2.
 
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
FINAL
RULE,
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
VA
..................
St.
Juliens
Creek
Annex
(
U.
S.
Navy)
.....................................................................................................
Chesapeake.

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

VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4706
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46100
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
B.
Status
of
NPL
With
the
12
new
sites
added
to
the
NPL
in
today's
final
rule;
the
NPL
now
contains
1,238
final
sites;
1,078
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
7
new
sites
to
the
NPL,
there
are
now
57
sites
proposed
and
awaiting
final
agency
action,
51
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
6
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
total
1,295.
(
These
numbers
reflect
the
status
of
sites
as
of
July
10,
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
Newton
County
Wells
site
was
proposed
on
January
19,
1999
(
64
FR
2950).
The
International
Smelting
and
Refining
site
was
proposed
on
April
23,
1999
(
64
FR
19968).
The
Star
Lake
Canal
site
was
proposed
on
July
22,
1999
(
64
FR
39886).
The
Big
John
Salvage
site
and
the
St.
Juliens
Creek
Annex
site
were
both
proposed
on
February
4,
2000
(
65
FR
5468).
The
following
sites
were
proposed
on
May
11,
2000
(
65
FR
30489):
Scovill
Industrial
Landfill,
Southern
Solvents,
Inc.,
Mallard
Bay
Landing
Bulk
Plant
(
proposed
under
the
name
Talen's
Landing
Bulk
Plant),
Davis
Timber
Company,
Imperial
Refining
Company,
Palmer
Barge
Line,
and
Hamilton/
Labree
Roads
Ground
Water
Contamination.
For
the
Scovill
Industrial
Landfill
and
Imperial
Refining
Company
sites,
EPA
received
only
comments
in
favor
of
placing
the
sites
on
the
NPL.
EPA
received
no
comments
on
the
actual
scoring
of
these
sites
and
the
Agency
has
identified
no
other
reason
to
change
the
original
HRS
scores
for
the
sites.
Therefore,
EPA
is
placing
both
sites
on
the
NPL
at
this
time.
For,
Southern
Solvents,
Inc.,
Davis
Timber
Company,
and
Hamilton/
Labree
Roads
Ground
Water
Contamination,
EPA
received
no
comments
affecting
the
HRS
scoring
of
these
sites
and
therefore,
EPA
is
placing
them
on
the
final
NPL
at
this
time.
EPA
received
one
comment
on
the
Palmer
Barge
Line
site
in
Port
Arthur,
Texas.
The
commenter
stated
that
his
family
business
occupies
the
North
Eastern
10
acres
at
the
Palmer
Barge
Line
location.
The
commenter
stated
that
he
hoped
that
EPA
would
not
interrupt
his
company's
work.
In
response,
CERCLA
Section
105(
a)(
8)(
A)
specifies
the
criteria
for
listing
sites
but
does
not
require
that
the
Agency
consider
possible
adverse
economic
impacts
as
a
factor;
accordingly
the
listing
process
does
not
use
that
as
a
factor
in
identifying
sites
for
the
NPL.
Furthermore,
including
a
site
on
the
NPL
does
not
cause
EPA
necessarily
to
undertake
remedial
action.
Any
Agency
actions
that
may
result
in
response
actions
are
based
on
discretionary
decisions
and
are
made
on
a
case­
bycase
basis.
Remedial
response
actions
are
associated
with
events
that
generally
follow
listing
a
site,
not
with
the
listing
itself.
EPA
has
not
made
a
decision
on
what,
if
any,
action
may
be
needed
at
the
Palmer
Barge
Line
site,
but
if
remediation
is
necessary,
the
Agency
will
seek
to
minimize
any
disruption
of
local
businesses
to
the
extent
possible.
Since
this
comment
does
not
affect
the
HRS
score
of
this
site,
EPA
is
placing
it
on
the
final
NPL
at
this
time.
EPA
received
one
comment
on
the
Talen's
Landing
Bulk
Plant
site
in
Grand
Cheniere,
Louisiana.
The
commenter
asked
that
EPA
change
the
name
of
the
Talen's
Landing
Bulk
Plant
site.
In
response,
to
more
accurately
identify
the
site,
EPA
is
changing
the
name
of
the
site
to
``
Mallard
Bay
Landing
Bulk
Plant''.
The
commenter
requested
a
public
statement
concerning
his
client's
interest
or
involvement
with
the
site.
EPA
is
unable
to
comply
with
this
request.
This
comment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
rulemaking
and
does
not
affect
the
HRS
site
score.
The
NPL
serves
primarily
as
an
informational
list.
Placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
reflects
EPA's
judgment
that
a
significant
release
or
threat
of
release
of
a
hazardous
substance
has
occurred,
and
that
the
site
is
a
priority
for
further
investigation
under
CERCLA.
Placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
is
not
a
determination
of
liability,
nor
does
listing
cause
EPA
necessarily
to
undertake
remedial
action,
or
to
require
any
action
by
a
private
party,
or
to
assign
liability
for
site
response
costs
to
a
private
party.
Any
Agency
actions
that
may
result
in
response
actions
are
based
on
discretionary
decisions
and
are
made
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
Remedial
response
actions
are
associated
with
events
that
generally
follow
listing
a
site,
not
with
the
listing
itself.
Since
this
comment
does
not
affect
the
HRS
score
of
this
site,
EPA
is
placing
it
on
the
final
NPL
at
this
time
under
the
site
name
Mallard
Bay
Landing
Bulk
Plant.
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
 
July
2000''.
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
12866?

Under
Executive
Order
12866,
(
58
FR
51735
(
October
4,
1993))
the
Agency
must
determine
whether
a
regulatory
action
is
``
significant''
and
therefore
subject
to
OMB
review
and
the
requirements
of
the
Executive
Order.
The
Order
defines
``
significant
regulatory
action''
as
one
that
is
likely
to
result
in
a
rule
that
may:
(
1)
Have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more
or
adversely
affect
in
a
material
way
the
economy,
a
sector
of
the
economy,
productivity,
competition,
jobs,
the
environment,
public
health
or
safety,
or
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments
or
communities;
(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlements,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

B.
Is
This
Final
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?

No,
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
has
exempted
this
regulatory
action
from
Executive
Order
12866
review.

V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
What
Is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(
UMRA)?

Title
II
of
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
UMRA),
Public
Law
104
 
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
Agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
EPA
promulgates
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
16:
01
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
27JYR1
46101
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Final
Rule?

No,
EPA
has
determined
that
this
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector
in
any
one
year.
This
rule
will
not
impose
any
federal
intergovernmental
mandate
because
it
imposes
no
enforceable
duty
upon
State,
tribal
or
local
governments.
Listing
a
site
on
the
NPL
does
not
itself
impose
any
costs.
Listing
does
not
mean
that
EPA
necessarily
will
undertake
remedial
action.
Nor
does
listing
require
any
action
by
a
private
party
or
determine
liability
for
response
costs.
Costs
that
arise
out
of
site
responses
result
from
site­
specific
decisions
regarding
what
actions
to
take,
not
directly
from
the
act
of
listing
a
site
on
the
NPL.
For
the
same
reasons,
EPA
also
has
determined
that
this
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
In
addition,
as
discussed
above,
the
private
sector
is
not
expected
to
incur
costs
exceeding
$
100
million.
EPA
has
fulfilled
the
requirement
for
analysis
under
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act.

VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
Is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?

Pursuant
to
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
5
U.
S.
C.
601
et
seq.,
as
amended
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA)
of
1996)
whenever
an
agency
is
required
to
publish
a
notice
of
rulemaking
for
any
proposed
or
final
rule,
it
must
prepare
and
make
available
for
public
comment
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
that
describes
the
effect
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
(
i.
e.,
small
businesses,
small
organizations,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions).
However,
no
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
required
if
the
head
of
an
agency
certifies
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
SBREFA
amended
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
to
require
Federal
agencies
to
provide
a
statement
of
the
factual
basis
for
certifying
that
a
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

B.
Does
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
Apply
to
this
Final
Rule?

No.
While
this
rule
revises
the
NPL,
an
NPL
revision
is
not
a
typical
regulatory
change
since
it
does
not
automatically
impose
costs.
As
stated
above,
adding
sites
to
the
NPL
does
not
in
itself
require
any
action
by
any
party,
nor
does
it
determine
the
liability
of
any
party
for
the
cost
of
cleanup
at
the
site.
Further,
no
identifiable
groups
are
affected
as
a
whole.
As
a
consequence,
impacts
on
any
group
are
hard
to
predict.
A
site's
inclusion
on
the
NPL
could
increase
the
likelihood
of
adverse
impacts
on
responsible
parties
(
in
the
form
of
cleanup
costs),
but
at
this
time
EPA
cannot
identify
the
potentially
affected
businesses
or
estimate
the
number
of
small
businesses
that
might
also
be
affected.
The
Agency
does
expect
that
placing
the
sites
in
this
rule
on
the
NPL
could
significantly
affect
certain
industries,
or
firms
within
industries,
that
have
caused
a
proportionately
high
percentage
of
waste
site
problems.
However,
EPA
does
not
expect
the
listing
of
these
sites
to
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
businesses.
In
any
case,
economic
impacts
would
occur
only
through
enforcement
and
cost­
recovery
actions,
which
EPA
takes
at
its
discretion
on
a
site­
by­
site
basis.
EPA
considers
many
factors
when
determining
enforcement
actions,
including
not
only
a
firm's
contribution
to
the
problem,
but
also
its
ability
to
pay.
The
impacts
(
from
cost
recovery)
on
small
governments
and
nonprofit
organizations
would
be
determined
on
a
similar
case­
by­
case
basis.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
I
hereby
certify
that
this
rule,
if
promulgated,
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Therefore,
this
regulation
does
not
require
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis.
VII.
Possible
Changes
to
the
Effective
Date
of
the
Rule
A.
Has
This
Rule
Been
Submitted
to
Congress
and
the
General
Accounting
Office?
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
EPA
has
submitted
a
report
containing
this
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
A
``
major
rule''
cannot
take
effect
until
60
days
after
it
is
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
This
rule
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).

B.
Could
the
Effective
Date
of
This
Final
Rule
Change?
Provisions
of
the
Congressional
Review
Act
(
CRA)
or
section
305
of
CERCLA
may
alter
the
effective
date
of
this
regulation.
Under
the
CRA,
5
U.
S.
C.
801(
a),
before
a
rule
can
take
effect
the
federal
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
report
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General.
This
report
must
contain
a
copy
of
the
rule,
a
concise
general
statement
relating
to
the
rule
(
including
whether
it
is
a
major
rule),
a
copy
of
the
cost­
benefit
analysis
of
the
rule
(
if
any),
the
agency's
actions
relevant
to
provisions
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
affecting
small
businesses)
and
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
of
1995
(
describing
unfunded
federal
requirements
imposed
on
state
and
local
governments
and
the
private
sector),
and
any
other
relevant
information
or
requirements
and
any
relevant
Executive
Orders.
EPA
has
submitted
a
report
under
the
CRA
for
this
rule.
The
rule
will
take
effect,
as
provided
by
law,
within
30
days
of
publication
of
this
document,
since
it
is
not
a
major
rule.
Section
804(
2)
defines
a
major
rule
as
any
rule
that
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
(
OIRA)
of
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
finds
has
resulted
in
or
is
likely
to
result
in:
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100,000,000
or
more;
a
major
increase
in
costs
or
prices
for
consumers,
individual
industries,
Federal,
State,
or
local
government
agencies,
or
geographic
regions;
or
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46102
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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.

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
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46103
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Thus,
the
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

XIII.
Executive
Order
13084
What
is
Executive
Order
13084
and
Is
It
Applicable
to
this
Final
Rule?
Under
Executive
Order
13084,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affects
the
communities
of
Indian
tribal
governments,
and
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs
on
those
communities,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
the
tribal
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
those
governments.
If
EPA
complies
by
consulting,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
provide
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
in
a
separately
identified
section
of
the
preamble
to
the
rule,
a
description
of
the
extent
of
EPA's
prior
consultation
with
representatives
of
affected
tribal
governments,
a
summary
of
the
nature
of
their
concerns,
and
a
statement
supporting
the
need
to
issue
the
regulation.
In
addition,
Executive
Order
13084
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
effective
process
permitting
elected
officials
and
other
representatives
of
Indian
tribal
governments
``
to
provide
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
on
matters
that
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
their
communities.''
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
Executive
Order
13084
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
300
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Chemicals,
Hazardous
substances,
Hazardous
waste,
Intergovernmental
relations,
Natural
resources,
Oil
pollution,
penalties,
Reporting
and
record
keeping
requirements,
Superfund,
Water
pollution
control,
Water
supply.

Dated:
July
20,
2000.
Timothy
Fields,
Jr.,
Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.

40
CFR
part
300
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
300
 
[
AMENDED]

1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
300
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
33
U.
S.
C.
1321(
c)(
2);
42
U.
S.
C.
9601
 
9657;
E.
O.
12777,
56
FR
54757,
3
CFR,
1991
Comp.,
p.
351;
E.
O.
12580,
52
FR
2923,
3
CFR,
1987
Comp.,
p.
193.

2.
Table
1
and
Table
2
of
Appendix
B
to
Part
300
are
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)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
CT
.................
Scovill
Industrial
Landfill
.......................................................................................................
Waterbury
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
FL
.................
Southern
Solvents,
Inc
..........................................................................................................
Tampa
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
LA
.................
Mallard
Bay
Landing
Bulk
Plant
...........................................................................................
Grand
Cheniere
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MO
................
Newton
County
Wells
...........................................................................................................
Newton
County
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MS
................
Davis
Timber
Company
........................................................................................................
Hattiesburg
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
OK
................
Imperial
Refining
Company
..................................................................................................
Ardmore
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TX
.................
Palmer
Barge
Line
................................................................................................................
Port
Arthur
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TX
.................
Star
Lake
Canal
....................................................................................................................
Port
Neches
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
UT
.................
International
Smelting
and
Refining
......................................................................................
Tooele
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WA
................
Hamilton/
Labree
Roads
Ground
Water
Contamination
........................................................
Chehalis
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
WV
................
Big
John
Salvage
 
Hoult
Road
............................................................................................
Fairmont
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
10:
41
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm09
PsN:
27JYR1
46104
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
65,
No.
145
/
Thursday,
July
27,
2000
/
Rules
and
Regulations
TABLE
1.
 
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
 
Continued
State
Site
name
City/
county
Notes(
a)

*
*
*
*
*
*
*

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

TABLE
2.
 
FEDERAL
FACILITIES
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
Notes(
a)

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

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

[
FR
Doc.
00
 
18902
Filed
7
 
26
 
00;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
430
[
FRL
 
6842
 
2]

Project
XL
Site­
Specific
Rule
for
the
International
Paper
Androscoggin
Mill
Facility
in
Jay,
Maine;
Project
XL
Final
Project
Agreement
to
be
Signed
for
Effluent
Improvement
Project
at
International
Paper
Androscoggin
Mill
Facility
in
Jay,
Maine
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule;
notice
regarding
signing
of
final
project
agreement.

SUMMARY:
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
today
is
finalizing
this
rule
to
provide
site­
specific
regulatory
flexibility
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
as
part
of
an
XL
Project
with
International
Paper's
Androscoggin
Mill
pulp
and
paper
manufacturing
facility
in
Jay,
Maine.
The
site­
specific
rule
will
exempt
International
Paper
Androscoggin
Mill
from
certain
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
required
under
CWA
regulations.
In
exchange
for
this
regulatory
flexibility,
International
Paper
Androscoggin
Mill
will
implement
a
series
of
projects
designed
to
improve
the
mill's
effluent
quality
and
will
accept
numeric
permit
limits
corresponding
to
the
expected
improvements
in
effluent
quality.
The
terms
of
the
International
Paper
XL
project
are
contained
in
the
Final
Project
Agreement
(
FPA),
which
project
participants
are
expected
to
sign
on
June
29,
2000.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
final
rule
is
effective
on
July
27,
2000.
ADDRESSES:
A
docket
containing
the
final
rule,
Final
Project
Agreement,
and
supporting
materials
is
available
for
public
inspection
and
copying
at
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
401
M.
St.,
SW.,
Washington,
DC,
Room
1027.
Members
of
the
public
are
encouraged
to
telephone
in
advance
at
202
 
260
 
3344
to
schedule
an
appointment.
A
duplicate
copy
of
project
materials
is
available
for
inspection
and
copying
at
EPA
Regional
Library,
U.
S.
EPA,
Region
I,
Suite
1100
(
LIB),
One
Congress
Street,
Boston
MA,
02114
 
2023,
as
well
as
the
Town
Hall,
99
Main
Street,
Jay,
ME
04239
during
normal
business
hours.
Persons
wishing
to
view
the
materials
at
the
Boston
location
are
encouraged
to
contact
Mr.
Chris
Rascher
in
advance.
Persons
wishing
to
view
the
materials
at
the
Jay,
Maine,
location
are
encouraged
to
contact
Ms.
Shiloh
Ring
at
(
207)
897
 
6785
in
advance.
Project
materials
on
today's
action
are
also
available
on
the
worldwide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl/.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Persons
seeking
information
on
the
project
should
contact
Mr.
Chris
Rascher
in
U.
S.
EPA/
Region
1
 
New
England
or
Ms.
Nina
Bonnelycke
in
U.
S.
EPA
Headquarters.
Mr.
Rascher
can
be
reached
at
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
One
Congress
St.,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA
02114,
or
at
rascher.
chris@
epa.
gov.
Ms.
Bonnelycke
can
be
reached
at
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460,
or
at
bonnelycke.
nina@
epa.
gov.
Further
information
on
today's
action
is
also
available
on
the
worldwide
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
projectxl.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Category
Examples
of
potentially
affected
parties
Industry
........
International
Paper,
Androscoggin
Mill,
Jay,
Maine
Outline
of
Today's
Document
This
preamble
presents
the
following
information:

I.
Authority
II.
Overview
of
Project
XL
III.
Overview
of
the
International
Paper
Effluent
Improvements
XL
Project
A.
To
Which
Facilities
Will
the
Final
Rule
Apply?
B.
From
What
Required
Activities
Will
Today's
Final
Rule
Provide
an
Exemption?
C.
What
Will
the
IP­
Androscoggin
Mill
Do
Differently
Under
The
XL
Project?
D.
What
Regulatory
Changes
Will
Be
Necessary
to
Implement
this
Project?
E.
Why
is
EPA
Supporting
This
Approach
of
Granting
a
Waiver
from
BMPs?
F.
How
Have
Stakeholders
Been
Involved
in
this
Project?
G.
How
Will
this
Project
Result
in
Cost
Savings
and
Paperwork
Reduction?
H.
What
Are
The
Enforceable
Provisions
Of
The
Project?
I.
How
Long
Will
this
Project
Last
and
When
Will
It
Be
Completed?
IV.
Additional
Information
VerDate
11<
MAY>
2000
16:
01
Jul
26,
2000
Jkt
190000
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4700
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
27JYR1.
SGM
pfrm01
PsN:
27JYR1
