56794
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
Washington,
DC
20240.
You
may
also
email
the
comments
to
this
address:
Exsec@
ios.
doi.
gov.
Drafting
Information:
The
primary
authors
of
this
regulation
were
Jim
Holland,
Park
Planner;
Nancy
Hendricks,
Resource
Management
Specialist;
and
Kevin
Hendricks,
Assistant
Chief
Ranger,
Lake
Mead
National
Recreation
Area.
Public
Participation:
If
you
wish
to
comment,
you
may
submit
your
comments
by
any
one
of
several
methods.
You
may
mail
written
comments
to:
Jim
Holland,
Management
Assistant,
Lake
Mead
National
Recreation
Area,
601
Nevada
Way,
Boulder
City,
Nevada
89005.
You
may
also
comment
via
the
Internet
to
lame   
pwcrule@
nps.
gov.
Please
also
include
``
PWC
rule''
in
the
subject
line
and
your
name
and
return
address
in
the
body
of
your
Internet
message.
Finally,
you
may
hand
deliver
comments
to
Jim
Holland
at
the
above
address.
Our
practice
is
to
make
comments,
including
names
and
addresses
of
respondents,
available
for
public
review
during
regular
business
hours.
Individual
respondents
may
request
that
we
withhold
their
home
address
from
the
rulemaking
record,
which
we
will
honor
to
the
extent
allowable
by
law.
If
you
wish
us
to
withhold
your
name
and/
or
address,
you
must
state
this
prominently
at
the
beginning
of
your
comment.
However,
we
will
not
consider
anonymous
comments.
We
will
make
all
submissions
from
organizations
or
businesses,
and
from
individuals
identifying
themselves
as
representatives
or
officials
or
organizations
or
businesses,
available
for
public
inspection
in
their
entirety.

List
of
Subjects
in
36
CFR
Part
7
District
of
Columbia,
National
parks,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.
In
consideration
of
the
foregoing,
the
National
Park
Service
proposes
to
amend
36
CFR
part
7
as
follows:

PART
7—
SPECIAL
REGULATIONS,
AREAS
OF
THE
NATIONAL
PARK
SYSTEM
1.
The
authority
citation
for
part
7
continues
to
read
as
follows:

Authority:
16
U.
S.
C.
1,
3,
9a,
460(
q),
462(
k);
Sec.
7.96
also
issued
under
D.
C.
Code
8Ð
137(
1981)
and
D.
C.
Code
40Ð
721
(1981).

2.
Section
7.48
is
amended
by
adding
paragraph
(g)
to
read
as
follows:

§
7.48
Lake
Mead
National
Recreation
Area.

*
*
*
*
*
(g)
Personal
watercraft
(1)
Personal
watercraft
may
operate,
transit
and
launch
in
park
waters
or
beach
on
park
land
except
in
the
following
Primitive
and
Semi­
primitive
areas
as
described
below
and
illustrated
on
the
park
management
zones
map:
(i)
Arizona
T33N;
R16W
Portions
of
sections
16,
17,
21,
22,
27,
28,
29,
33
and
34,
and
T32
1
Ú2
N;
R16W
Portions
of
Sections
32
and
33
known
as
Grand
Wash
Bay;
(ii)
Arizona
T31N;
R20W
Portions
of
sections
2,
3,
10
and
11
known
as
The
Gypsum
Beds;
(iii)
Nevada
T36N;
R68E
Portions
of
Sections
25,
26,
34,
35,
36
known
as
the
Virgin
River
Bowl;
(iv)
Nevada
T22S;
R65E
Portions
of
Sections
32;
T23S;
R65E
Portions
of
Sections
5,
8,
17,
20,
21,
28,
29,
34;
T23
1
Ú2
S;
R65E
Portions
of
Sections
34;
T23S;
R65E
Portions
of
Sections
1,
2,
and
12.
Arizona
T30N;
R23W
Portions
of
Sections
3,
10,
15,
22,
27,
34;
T29N;
R23W
Portions
of
Sections
2,
12,
13;
T29N;
R22W
Portions
of
Sections
18,
19,
20,
29;
known
as
Black
Canyon.
(2)
Personal
watercraft
may
not
be
operated
at
a
speed
in
excess
of
flatwake
within
100
feet
of
any
shoreline.
(3)
Personal
watercraft
that
do
not
meet
the
2006
emission
standards
set
by
EPA
for
the
manufacturing
of
two­
cycle
engines
will
be
prohibited
from
operating
within
Lake
Mead
NRA
after
December
31,
2012.
All
personal
watercraft
that
meet
the
EPA
2006
emission
standards
through
the
use
of
direct­
injection
two­
cycle
or
four­
cycle
engines
shall
not
be
affected
by
this
prohibition
and
will
be
allowed
to
operate
as
described
in
paragraphs
(g)(
1)
and
(2)
of
this
section.
(4)
The
Superintendent
may
temporarily
limit,
restrict
or
terminate
access
to
the
areas
designated
for
PWC
use
after
taking
into
consideration
public
health
and
safety,
natural
and
cultural
resource
protection,
and
other
management
activities
and
objectives.

Dated:
August
29,
2002.

Craig
Manson,

Assistant
Secretary
for
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
Parks.
[FR
Doc.
02Ð
22630
Filed
9Ð
4Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
4310–
70–
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
300
[FRL–
7272–
2]

National
Priorities
List
for
Uncontrolled
Hazardous
Waste
Sites,
Proposed
Rule
No.
38
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
ACTION:
Proposed
rule.

SUMMARY:
The
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
(``
CERCLA''
or
``
the
Act''),
requires
that
the
National
Oil
and
Hazardous
Substances
Pollution
Contingency
Plan
(``
NCP'')
include
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
releases
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
National
Priorities
List
(``
NPL'')
constitutes
this
list.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(``
EPA''
or
``
the
Agency'')
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation.
These
further
investigations
will
allow
EPA
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
proposed
rule
proposes
to
add
new
sites
to
the
NPL;
all
to
the
General
Superfund
Section
of
the
NPL.
DATES:
Comments
regarding
any
of
these
proposed
listings
must
be
submitted
(postmarked)
on
or
before
November
4,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
By
Postal
Mail:
Mail
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
(no
facsimiles
or
tapes)
to
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
(Mail
Code
5305T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.
By
Express
Mail
or
Courier:
Send
original
and
three
copies
of
comments
(no
facsimiles
or
tapes)
to
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
CERCLA
Docket
Office,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
Washington,
DC
20004.
By
E­
Mail:
Comments
in
ASCII
format
only
may
be
mailed
directly
to
superfund.
docket@
epa.
gov.
E­
mailed
comments
must
be
followed
up
by
an
original
and
three
copies
sent
by
mail
or
express
mail.
For
additional
Docket
addresses
and
further
details
on
their
contents,
see
VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
15:
01
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56795
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
section
II,
``
Public
Review/
Public
Comment,
''
of
the
Supplementary
Information
portion
of
this
preamble.
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Yolanda
Singer,
phone
(703)
603Ð
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)
424Ð
9346
or
(703)
412Ð
9810
in
the
Washington,
DC
metropolitan
area.
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Table
of
Contents
I.
Background
A.
What
are
CERCLA
and
SARA?
B.
What
is
the
NCP?
C.
What
is
the
National
Priorities
List
(NPL)?
D.
How
are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NPL?
E.
What
Happens
to
Sites
on
the
NPL?
F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?
G.
How
Are
Sites
Removed
From
the
NPL?
H.
Can
Portions
of
Sites
Be
Deleted
from
the
NPL
as
They
Are
Cleaned
Up?
I.
What
is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(CCL)?
II.
Public
Review/
Public
Comment
A.
Can
I
Review
the
Documents
Relevant
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
B.
How
Do
I
Access
the
Documents?
C.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Headquarters
Docket?
D.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?
E.
How
Do
I
Submit
My
Comments?
F.
What
Happens
to
My
Comments?
G.
What
Should
I
Consider
When
Preparing
My
Comments?
H.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
After
the
Public
Comment
Period
Is
Over?
I.
Can
I
View
Public
Comments
Submitted
by
Others?
J.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
Regarding
Sites
Not
Currently
Proposed
to
the
NPL?
III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
the
NPL
B.
Status
of
NPL
IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12866?
B.
Is
This
Proposed
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
12866
Review?
V.
Unfunded
Mandates
A.
What
is
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
(UMRA)?
B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
VI.
Effect
on
Small
Businesses
A.
What
is
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act?
B.
How
Has
EPA
Complied
with
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA)?
VII.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
A.
What
is
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?
B.
Does
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
VIII.
Executive
Order
12898
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
12898?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
IX.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
13045?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
13045
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
X.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
What
is
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
B.
Does
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Apply
to
this
Proposed
Rule?
XI.
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
What
Are
The
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
and
Are
They
Applicable
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
XII.
Executive
Order
13175
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
13175?
B.
Does
Executive
Order
13175
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
XIII.
Executive
Order
13211
A.
What
is
Executive
Order
13211?
B.
Is
this
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
13211?

I.
Background
A.
What
Are
CERCLA
and
SARA?

In
1980,
Congress
enacted
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act,
42
U.
S.
C.
9601Ð
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
99Ð
499,
100
Stat.
1613
et
seq.

B.
What
Is
the
NCP?

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

The
NPL
is
a
list
of
national
priorities
among
the
known
or
threatened
releases
of
hazardous
substances,
pollutants,
or
contaminants
throughout
the
United
States.
The
list,
which
is
appendix
B
of
the
NCP
(40
CFR
part
300),
was
required
under
section
105(
a)(
8)(
B)
of
CERCLA,
as
amended
by
SARA,
section
105(
a)(
8)(
B)
defines
the
NPL
as
a
list
of
``
releases''
and
the
highest
priority
``
facilities''
and
requires
that
the
NPL
be
revised
at
least
annually.
The
NPL
is
intended
primarily
to
guide
EPA
in
determining
which
sites
warrant
further
investigation
to
assess
the
nature
and
extent
of
public
health
and
environmental
risks
associated
with
a
release
of
hazardous
substances.
The
NPL
is
only
of
limited
significance,
however,
as
it
does
not
assign
liability
to
any
party
or
to
the
owner
of
any
specific
property.
Neither
does
placing
a
site
on
the
NPL
mean
that
any
remedial
or
removal
action
necessarily
need
be
taken.
See
Report
of
the
Senate
Committee
on
Environment
and
Public
Works,
Senate
Rep.
No.
96Ð
848,
96th
Cong.,
2d
Sess.
60
(1980),
48
FR
40659
(September
8,
1983).
For
purposes
of
listing,
the
NPL
includes
two
sections,
one
of
sites
that
are
generally
evaluated
and
cleaned
up
by
EPA
(the
``
General
Superfund
Section''),
and
one
of
sites
that
are
owned
or
operated
by
other
Federal
agencies
(the
``
Federal
Facilities
Section'').
With
respect
to
sites
in
the
Federal
Facilities
section,
these
sites
are
generally
being
addressed
by
other
Federal
agencies.
Under
Executive
Order
12580
(52
FR
2923,
January
29,
1987)
and
CERCLA
section
120,
each
Federal
agency
is
responsible
for
carrying
out
most
response
actions
at
facilities
under
its
own
jurisdiction,
custody,
or
control,
although
EPA
is
responsible
for
preparing
an
HRS
score
and
determining
whether
the
facility
is
placed
on
the
NPL.
EPA
generally
is
not
the
lead
agency
at
Federal
Facilities
Section
sites,
and
its
role
at
such
sites
is
accordingly
less
extensive
than
at
other
sites.

D.
How
Are
Sites
Listed
on
the
NPL?

There
are
three
mechanisms
for
placing
sites
on
the
NPL
for
possible
remedial
action
(see
40
CFR
300.425(
c)
of
the
NCP):
(1)
A
site
may
be
included
on
the
NPL
if
it
scores
sufficiently
high
on
the
Hazard
Ranking
System
(``
HRS''),
which
EPA
promulgated
as
a
appendix
A
of
the
NCP
(40
CFR
part
300).
The
HRS
serves
as
a
screening
device
to
evaluate
the
relative
potential
of
uncontrolled
hazardous
substances
to
VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56796
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
pose
a
threat
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
On
December
14,
1990
(55
FR
51532),
EPA
promulgated
revisions
to
the
HRS
partly
in
response
to
CERCLA
section
105(
c),
added
by
SARA.
The
revised
HRS
evaluates
four
pathways:
Ground
water,
surface
water,
soil
exposure,
and
air.
As
a
matter
of
Agency
policy,
those
sites
that
score
28.50
or
greater
on
the
HRS
are
eligible
for
the
NPL;
(2)
Each
State
may
designate
a
single
site
as
its
top
priority
to
be
listed
on
the
NPL,
regardless
of
the
HRS
score.
This
mechanism,
provided
by
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)(
2)
requires
that,
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
NPL
include
within
the
100
highest
priorities,
one
facility
designated
by
each
State
representing
the
greatest
danger
to
public
health,
welfare,
or
the
environment
among
known
facilities
in
the
State
(see
42
U.
S.
C.
9605(
a)(
8)(
B));
(3)
The
third
mechanism
for
listing,
included
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
c)(
3),
allows
certain
sites
to
be
listed
regardless
of
their
HRS
score,
if
all
of
the
following
conditions
are
met:
 
The
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR)
of
the
U.
S.
Public
Health
Service
has
issued
a
health
advisory
that
recommends
dissociation
of
individuals
from
the
release.
 
EPA
determines
that
the
release
poses
a
significant
threat
to
public
health.
 
EPA
anticipates
that
it
will
be
more
cost­
effective
to
use
its
remedial
authority
than
to
use
its
removal
authority
to
respond
to
the
release.

EPA
promulgated
an
original
NPL
of
406
sites
on
September
8,
1983
(48
FR
40658).
The
NPL
has
been
expanded
since
then,
most
recently
on
September
13,
2001
(66
FR
47583).

E.
What
Happens
to
Sites
on
the
NPL?

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

F.
How
Are
Site
Boundaries
Defined?

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

G.
How
Are
Sites
Removed
From
the
NPL?
EPA
may
delete
sites
from
the
NPL
where
no
further
response
is
appropriate
under
Superfund,
as
explained
in
the
NCP
at
40
CFR
300.425(
e).
This
section
also
provides
that
EPA
shall
consult
with
states
on
proposed
deletions
and
shall
consider
whether
any
of
the
following
criteria
have
been
met:
(i)
Responsible
parties
or
other
persons
have
implemented
all
appropriate
response
actions
required;
(ii)
All
appropriate
Superfund­
financed
response
has
been
implemented
and
no
further
response
action
is
required;
or
(iii)
The
remedial
investigation
has
shown
the
release
poses
no
significant
threat
to
public
health
or
the
environment,
and
taking
of
remedial
measures
is
not
appropriate.
As
of
August
20,
2002,
the
Agency
has
deleted
259
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
August
20,
2002,
EPA
has
deleted
31
portions
of
28
sites.

VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56797
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
I.
What
Is
the
Construction
Completion
List
(CCL)?

EPA
also
has
developed
an
NPL
construction
completion
list
(``
CCL'')
to
simplify
its
system
of
categorizing
sites
and
to
better
communicate
the
successful
completion
of
cleanup
activities
(58
FR
12142,
March
2,
1993).
Inclusion
of
a
site
on
the
CCL
has
no
legal
significance.
Sites
qualify
for
the
CCL
when:
(1)
Any
necessary
physical
construction
is
complete,
whether
or
not
final
cleanup
levels
or
other
requirements
have
been
achieved;
(2)
EPA
has
determined
that
the
response
action
should
be
limited
to
measures
that
do
not
involve
construction
(e.
g.,
institutional
controls);
or
(3)
The
site
qualifies
for
deletion
from
the
NPL.
As
of
August
20,
2002,
there
are
a
total
of
818
sites
on
the
CCL.
For
the
most
up­
to­
date
information
on
the
CCL,
see
EPA's
Internet
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
superfund.

II.
Public
Review/
Public
Comment
A.
Can
I
Review
the
Documents
Relevant
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

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

B.
How
Do
I
Access
the
Documents?

You
may
view
the
documents,
by
appointment
only,
in
the
Headquarters
or
the
Regional
dockets
after
the
appearance
of
this
proposed
rule.
The
hours
of
operation
for
the
Headquarters
docket
are
from
9
a.
m.
to
4
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday
excluding
Federal
holidays.
Please
contact
the
Regional
dockets
for
hours.
Following
is
the
contact
information
for
the
EPA
Headquarters
docket:
Docket
Coordinator,
Headquarters;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency;
CERCLA
Docket
Office;
1301
Constitution
Avenue;
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
Washington,
DC
20004,
202/
566Ð
0276.
(Please
note
this
is
a
visiting
address
only.
Mail
comments
to
EPA
Headquarters
as
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble.)
The
contact
information
for
the
Regional
dockets
is
as
follows:
Ellen
Culhane,
Region
1
(CT,
ME,
MA,
NH,
RI,
VT),
U.
S.
EPA,
Superfund
Records
Center,
Mailcode
HSC,
One
Congress
Street,
Suite
1100,
Boston,
MA
02114Ð
2023;
617/
918Ð
1225
Dennis
Munhall,
Region
2
(NJ,
NY,
PR,
VI),
U.
S.
EPA,
290
Broadway,
New
York,
NY
10007Ð
1866;
212/
637Ð
4343
Dawn
Shellenberger
(ASRC),
Region
3
(DE,
DC,
MD,
PA,
VA,
WV),
U.
S.
EPA,
Library,
1650
Arch
Street,
Mailcode
3PM52,
Philadelphia,
PA
19103;
215/
814Ð
5364
Lauren
Brantley,
Region
4
(AL,
FL,
GA,
KY,
MS,
NC,
SC,
TN),
U.
S.
EPA,
61
Forsyth
Street,
SW,
9th
floor,
Atlanta,
GA
30303;
404/
562Ð
8127
Janet
Pfundheller,
Region
5
(IL,
IN,
MI,
MN,
OH,
WI),
U.
S.
EPA,
Records
Center,
Superfund
Division
SMRÐ
7J,
Metcalfe
Federal
Building,
77
West
Jackson
Boulevard,
Chicago,
IL
60604;
312/
353Ð
5821
Brenda
Cook,
Region
6
(AR,
LA,
NM,
OK,
TX),
U.
S.
EPA,
1445
Ross
Avenue,
Mailcode
6SFÐ
RA,
Dallas,
TX
75202Ð
2733;
214/
665Ð
7436
Michelle
Quick,
Region
7
(IA,
KS,
MO,
NE),
U.
S.
EPA,
901
North
5th
Street,
Kansas
City,
KS
66101;
913/
551Ð
7335
David
Williams,
Region
8
(CO,
MT,
ND,
SD,
UT,
WY),
U.
S.
EPA,
999
18th
Street,
Suite
500,
Mailcode
8EPRÐ
SA,
Denver,
CO
80202Ð
2466;
303/
312Ð
6757
Carolyn
Douglas,
Region
9
(AZ,
CA,
HI,
NV,
AS,
GU),
U.
S.
EPA,
75
Hawthorne
Street,
San
Francisco,
CA
94105;
415/
972Ð
3092
Robert
Phillips,
Region
10
(AK,
ID,
OR,
WA),
U.
S.
EPA,
11th
Floor,
1200
6th
Avenue,
Mail
Stop
ECLÐ
110,
Seattle,
WA
98101;
206/
553Ð
6699
You
may
also
request
copies
from
EPA
Headquarters
or
the
Regional
dockets.
An
informal
request,
rather
than
a
formal
written
request
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
should
be
the
ordinary
procedure
for
obtaining
copies
of
any
of
these
documents.

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

The
Headquarters
docket
for
this
rule
contains:
HRS
score
sheets
for
the
proposed
sites;
a
Documentation
Record
for
the
sites
describing
the
information
used
to
compute
the
score;
information
for
any
sites
affected
by
particular
statutory
requirements
or
EPA
listing
policies;
and
a
list
of
documents
referenced
in
the
Documentation
Record.

D.
What
Documents
Are
Available
for
Public
Review
at
the
Regional
Dockets?

The
Regional
dockets
for
this
rule
contain
all
of
the
information
in
the
Headquarters
docket,
plus,
the
actual
reference
documents
containing
the
data
principally
relied
upon
and
cited
by
EPA
in
calculating
or
evaluating
the
HRS
score
for
the
sites.
These
reference
documents
are
available
only
in
the
Regional
dockets.
E.
How
Do
I
Submit
My
Comments?
Comments
must
be
submitted
to
EPA
Headquarters
as
detailed
at
the
beginning
of
this
preamble
in
the
ADDRESSES
section.
Please
note
that
the
addresses
differ
according
to
method
of
delivery.
There
are
two
different
addresses
that
depend
on
whether
comments
are
sent
by
express
mail
or
by
postal
mail.

F.
What
Happens
to
My
Comments?
EPA
considers
all
comments
received
during
the
comment
period.
Significant
comments
will
be
addressed
in
a
support
document
that
EPA
will
publish
concurrently
with
the
Federal
Register
document
if,
and
when,
the
site
is
listed
on
the
NPL.

G.
What
Should
I
Consider
When
Preparing
My
Comments?
Comments
that
include
complex
or
voluminous
reports,
or
materials
prepared
for
purposes
other
than
HRS
scoring,
should
point
out
the
specific
information
that
EPA
should
consider
and
how
it
affects
individual
HRS
factor
values
or
other
listing
criteria
(Northside
Sanitary
Landfill
v.
Thomas,
849
F.
2d
1516
(D.
C.
Cir.
1988)).
EPA
will
not
address
voluminous
comments
that
are
not
specifically
cited
by
page
number
and
referenced
to
the
HRS
or
other
listing
criteria.
EPA
will
not
address
comments
unless
they
indicate
which
component
of
the
HRS
documentation
record
or
what
particular
point
in
EPA's
stated
eligibility
criteria
is
at
issue.

H.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
After
the
Public
Comment
Period
Is
Over?
Generally,
EPA
will
not
respond
to
late
comments.
EPA
can
only
guarantee
that
it
will
consider
those
comments
postmarked
by
the
close
of
the
formal
comment
period.
EPA
has
a
policy
of
not
delaying
a
final
listing
decision
solely
to
accommodate
consideration
of
late
comments.

I.
Can
I
View
Public
Comments
Submitted
by
Others?
During
the
comment
period,
comments
are
placed
in
the
Headquarters
docket
and
are
available
to
the
public
on
an
``
as
received''
basis.
A
complete
set
of
comments
will
be
available
for
viewing
in
the
Regional
docket
approximately
one
week
after
the
formal
comment
period
closes.

J.
Can
I
Submit
Comments
Regarding
Sites
Not
Currently
Proposed
to
the
NPL?
In
certain
instances,
interested
parties
have
written
to
EPA
concerning
sites
which
were
not
at
that
time
proposed
to
VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56798
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
the
NPL.
If
those
sites
are
later
proposed
to
the
NPL,
parties
should
review
their
earlier
concerns
and,
if
still
appropriate,
resubmit
those
concerns
for
consideration
during
the
formal
comment
period.
Site­
specific
correspondence
received
prior
to
the
period
of
formal
proposal
and
comment
will
not
generally
be
included
in
the
docket.

III.
Contents
of
This
Proposed
Rule
A.
Proposed
Additions
to
the
NPL
With
today's
proposed
rule,
EPA
is
proposing
to
add
7
new
sites
to
the
NPL;
all
to
the
General
Superfund
of
the
NPL.
All
of
the
sites
in
this
proposing
rulemaking
are
being
proposed
based
on
HRS
scores
of
28.50
or
above.
The
sites
are
presented
in
Table
1
which
follows
this
preamble.

B.
Status
of
NPL
A
final
rule
published
elsewhere
in
today's
Federal
Register
finalizes
19
sites
to
the
NPL;
resulting
in
an
NPL
of
1,239
final
sites;
1,080
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
159
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
With
this
proposal
of
7
new
sites,
there
are
now
62
sites
proposed
and
awaiting
final
agency
action,
56
in
the
General
Superfund
Section
and
6
in
the
Federal
Facilities
Section.
Final
and
proposed
sites
now
total
1,301.
(These
numbers
reflect
the
status
of
sites
as
of
August
20,
2002.
Site
deletions
occurring
after
this
date
may
affect
these
numbers
at
time
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register.)

IV.
Executive
Order
12866
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
12866?

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

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

No.
The
listing
of
sites
on
the
NPL
does
not
impose
any
obligations
on
any
entities.
The
listing
does
not
set
standards
or
a
regulatory
regime
and
imposes
no
liability
or
costs.
Any
liability
under
CERCLA
exists
irrespective
of
whether
a
site
is
listed.
It
has
been
determined
that
this
action
is
not
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866
and
is
therefore
not
subject
to
OMB
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
104Ð
4,
establishes
requirements
for
Federal
Agencies
to
assess
the
effects
of
their
regulatory
actions
on
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments
and
the
private
sector.
Under
section
202
of
the
UMRA,
EPA
generally
must
prepare
a
written
statement,
including
a
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
``
Federal
mandates''
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$100
million
or
more
in
any
one
year.
Before
EPA
promulgates
a
rule
for
which
a
written
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,
including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,
educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

B.
Does
UMRA
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

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

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

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

VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56799
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
B.
How
Has
EPA
Complied
With
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(RFA)?
This
proposed
rule
listing
sites
on
the
NPL,
if
promulgated,
would
not
impose
any
obligations
on
any
group,
including
small
entities.
This
proposed
rule,
if
promulgated,
also
would
establish
no
standards
or
requirements
that
any
small
entity
must
meet,
and
would
impose
no
direct
costs
on
any
small
entity.
Whether
an
entity,
small
or
otherwise,
is
liable
for
response
costs
for
a
release
of
hazardous
substances
depends
on
whether
that
entity
is
liable
under
CERCLA
107(
a).
Any
such
liability
exists
regardless
of
whether
the
site
is
listed
on
the
NPL
through
this
rulemaking.
Thus,
this
proposed
rule,
if
promulgated,
would
not
impose
any
requirements
on
any
small
entities.
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
I
certify
that
this
proposed
rule,
if
promulgated,
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

VII.
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
A.
What
Is
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act?
Section
12(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
of
1995
(NTTAA),
Public
Law
104Ð
113,
section
12(
d)
(15
U.
S.
C.
272
note),
directs
EPA
to
use
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
its
regulatory
activities
unless
to
do
so
would
be
inconsistent
with
applicable
law
or
otherwise
impractical.
Voluntary
consensus
standards
are
technical
standards
(e.
g.,
materials
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
and
business
practices)
that
are
developed
or
adopted
by
voluntary
consensus
standards
bodies.
The
NTTAA
directs
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
OMB,
explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

B.
Does
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
No.
This
proposed
rulemaking
does
not
involve
technical
standards.
Therefore,
EPA
did
not
consider
the
use
of
any
voluntary
consensus
standards.

VIII.
Executive
Order
12898
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
12898?
Under
Executive
Order
12898,
``
Federal
Actions
to
Address
Environmental
Justice
in
Minority
Populations
and
Low­
Income
Populations,
''
as
well
as
through
EPA's
April
1995,
``
Environmental
Justice
Strategy,
OSWER
Environmental
Justice
Task
Force
Action
Agenda
Report,
''
and
National
Environmental
Justice
Advisory
Council,
EPA
has
undertaken
to
incorporate
environmental
justice
into
its
policies
and
programs.
EPA
is
committed
to
addressing
environmental
justice
concerns,
and
is
assuming
a
leadership
role
in
environmental
justice
initiatives
to
enhance
environmental
quality
for
all
residents
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency's
goals
are
to
ensure
that
no
segment
of
the
population,
regardless
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
or
income,
bears
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
as
a
result
of
EPA's
policies,
programs,
and
activities,
and
all
people
live
in
clean
and
sustainable
communities.

B.
Does
Executive
Order
12898
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
No.
While
this
rule
proposes
to
revise
the
NPL,
no
action
will
result
from
this
proposal
that
will
have
disproportionately
high
and
adverse
human
health
and
environmental
effects
on
any
segment
of
the
population.

IX.
Executive
Order
13045
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13045?
Executive
Order
13045:
``
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks''
(62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant''
as
defined
under
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
Proposed
Rule?
This
proposed
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
proposed
rule
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.

X.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
A.
What
Is
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act?
According
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(PRA),
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.,
an
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
that
requires
OMB
approval
under
the
PRA,
unless
it
has
been
approved
by
OMB
and
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations,
after
initial
display
in
the
preamble
of
the
final
rules,
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.
The
information
collection
requirements
related
to
this
action
have
already
been
approved
by
OMB
pursuant
to
the
PRA
under
OMB
control
number
2070Ð
0012
(EPA
ICR
No.
574).

B.
Does
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

No.
EPA
has
determined
that
the
PRA
does
not
apply
because
this
rule
does
not
contain
any
information
collection
requirements
that
require
approval
of
the
OMB.

XI.
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
What
Are
The
Executive
Orders
on
Federalism
and
Are
They
Applicable
to
This
Proposed
Rule?

Executive
Order
13132,
entitled
``
Federalism''
(64
FR
43255,
August
10,
1999),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
State
and
local
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
federalism
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
federalism
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government.
''
Under
section
6
of
Executive
Order
13132,
EPA
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications,
that
imposes
substantial
direct
compliance
costs,
and
that
is
not
required
by
statute,
unless
the
Federal
government
provides
the
funds
necessary
to
pay
the
direct
compliance
costs
incurred
by
State
and
local
governments,
or
EPA
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
EPA
also
may
not
issue
a
regulation
that
has
federalism
implications
and
that
preempts
State
law,
unless
the
Agency
consults
with
State
and
local
officials
early
in
the
process
of
developing
the
proposed
regulation.
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
Thus,
the
VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
56800
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
67,
No.
172
/
Thursday,
September
5,
2002
/
Proposed
Rules
requirements
of
section
6
of
the
Executive
Order
do
not
apply
to
this
rule.

XII.
Executive
Order
13175
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13175?
Executive
Order
13175,
entitled
``
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments''
(65
FR
67249,
November
6,
2000),
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
''
``
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications''
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
``
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
the
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes.
''

B.
Does
Executive
Order
13175
Apply
to
This
Proposed
Rule?
This
proposed
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
this
proposed
rule.

XIII.
Executive
Order
13211
A.
What
Is
Executive
Order
13211?
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(66
FR
28355
(May
22,
2001),
requires
EPA
to
prepare
and
submit
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
to
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
for
certain
actions
identified
as
``
significant
energy
actions.
''
Section
4(
b)
of
Executive
Order
13211
defines
``
significant
energy
actions''
as
``
any
action
by
an
agency
(normally
published
in
the
Federal
Register)
that
promulgates
or
is
expected
to
lead
to
the
promulgation
of
a
final
rule
or
regulation,
including
notices
of
inquiry,
advance
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking,
and
notices
of
proposed
rulemaking:
(1)(
i)
That
is
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
or
any
successor
order,
and
(ii)
is
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy;
or
(2)
that
is
designated
by
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs
as
a
significant
energy
action.
''

B.
Is
This
Rule
Subject
to
Executive
Order
13211?

This
proposed
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13211,
``
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use''
(66
FR
28355
(May
22,
2001))
because
it
is
not
a
significant
regulatory
action
under
Executive
Order
12866
(See
discussion
of
Executive
Order
12866
above.)

TABLE
1.—
NATIONAL
PRIORITIES
LIST
PROPOSED
RULE
NO.
38,
GENERAL
SUPERFUND
SECTION
State
Site
name
City/
county
FL
....
United
Metals,
Inc
Marianna.
NC
...
Ward
Transformer
Raleigh.

OH
..
Lammers
Barrel
..
Beavercreek.
OR
..
Harbor
Oil
...........
Portland.
PR
...
Pesticide
Warehouse
III.
Manati.

TX
...
Falcon
Refinery
..
Ingleside.
TX
...
Gulfco
Marine
Maintenance.
Freeport.

Number
of
Sites
Proposed
to
General
Superfund
Section:
7.

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

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

Dated:
August
27,
2002.

Marianne
Lamont
Horinko,

Assistant
Administrator,
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
[FR
Doc.
02Ð
22539
Filed
9Ð
4Ð
02;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560–
50–
P
DEPARTMENT
OF
COMMERCE
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
50
CFR
Part
697
[Docket
No.
010413093–
2190–
02;
I.
D.
032301C]

RIN
0648–
AP18
American
Lobster;
Intent
to
Prepare
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
AGENCY:
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(NMFS),
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION:
Advance
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(ANPR),
Notice
of
Intent
(NOI)
to
combine
rulemaking
and
prepare
an
Environmental
Impact
Statement
(EIS);
request
for
comments.

SUMMARY:
NMFS
announces
its
intent
to
consider
revisions
to
the
Federal
lobster
regulations
in
response
to
the
recommendations
of
the
Atlantic
States
Marine
Fisheries
Commission
(Commission)
in
Addendum
III
to
Amendment
3
of
the
Interstate
Fishery
Management
Plan
for
American
Lobster
(ISFMP),
and
prepare
one
EIS
to
assess
the
impact
on
the
human
environment
of
potential
management
measures
for
the
American
lobster
fishery
in
the
U.
S.
Exclusive
Economic
Zone
(EEZ)
as
recommended
by
the
Commission
in
Addenda
II
and
III
to
Amendment
3
of
the
ISFMP
(Addendum
II
and
Addendum
III;
Addenda
II
and
III).
Written
comments
are
requested
from
the
public
regarding
issues
that
NMFS
should
address
in
the
EIS
relative
to
Addenda
II
and
III.
NMFS
is
also
soliciting
comments
with
this
notification
of
potential
modifications
to
parts
of
the
current
Federal
lobster
regulations
to
clarify
these
rules,
assist
with
their
enforcement,
and
better
describe
the
inter­
relationship
between
the
Federal
lobster
regulations,
the
Atlantic
Coastal
Fisheries
Cooperative
Management
Act
(ACFCMA),
and
other
applicable
laws.
DATES:
Written
comments
on
the
intent
to
prepare
the
EIS
relative
to
Addenda
II
and
III
and
on
the
potential
modifications
to
parts
of
the
current
lobster
regulations
must
be
received
no
later
than
5
p.
m.
Eastern
Standard
Time
on
or
before
October
7,
2002.
ADDRESSES:
Written
comments
should
be
sent
to
Harold
C.
Mears,
Director,
State,
Federal,
and
Constituent
Programs
Office,
Northeast
Region,
NMFS,
One
Blackburn
Drive,
Gloucester,
MA
01930.
Comments
may
also
be
sent
via
fax
to
(978)
281Ð
9117.

VerDate
Aug<
30>
2002
13:
28
Sep
04,
2002
Jkt
197001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4702
Sfmt
4702
E:\
FR\
FM\
05SEP1.
SGM
05SEP1
