[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 126 (Monday, July 3, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42619-42621]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14079]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0544]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain navigable waters in the Corpus Christi Bay. The safety zone is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from
potential hazards created by a fireworks display launched from a barge
in the Corpus Christi Bay in Corpus Christi, Texas. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0544 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this safety zone immediately to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the
fireworks display and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then to consider those comments before issuing the
rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with fireworks launched from a barge in the Corpus Christi Bay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks
display, occurring from 9 p.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2023, will be
a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Corpus Christi Bay
area within a 1000 foot radius from the following point;
27[deg]47'34.39'' N, 97[deg]23'6.77'' W. The purpose of this rule is to
ensure the safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in
the safety zone while the display of the fireworks takes place in the
Corpus Christi Bay.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on the night of July
1st, 2023. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of
the Corpus Christi Bay and is defined by a 1000 foot radius around the
launching platform. The regulated area encompasses a 1000 foot radius
from the following point; 27[deg]47'34.39'' N, 97[deg]23'6.77'' W. The
fireworks display will take place in the waters of the Corpus Christi
Bay. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety
zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners,
and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly,
this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone
will be enforced for the short period of one hour, on the night of July
4, 2023. The zone is limited to a 1000 foot radius from the launching
position of in the navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Bay. The rule
does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows
mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishment of a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Bay in a zone defined
by a 1000 foot radius from the following coordinate: 27[deg]47'34.39''
N, 97[deg]23'6.77'' W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
fireworks display in the waters of the Corpus Christi Bay. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0544 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0544  Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Bay, Corpus Christi,
TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Corpus Christi Bay encompassed by a 1000 foot radius from
the following point; 27[deg]47'34.39'' N, 97[deg]23'6.77'' W.
    (b) Enforcement period. This section is subject to enforcement from
9:00 p.m. through 10:00 p.m. on July 4, 2023.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23 of this part, entry into this temporary safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Corpus
Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

    Dated: June 27, 2023.
J.B. Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2023-14079 Filed 6-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 135 (Thursday, July 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41557-41558]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17715]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Mazda

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Mazda Motor Corporation
(Mazda) petition for an exemption of the CX-5 vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention
Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has determined
that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard
equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2013 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-439, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Ballard's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is
(202) 493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated April 7, 2011, Mazda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for its MY 2013 CX-5 vehicle
line.
    The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant to
49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment
for the entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Mazda
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the new
vehicle line. Mazda will install a passive transponder-based,
electronic immobilizer antitheft device as standard equipment on its
CX-5 vehicle line beginning with MY 2013. Major components of the
antitheft device will include a powertrain control module, an
immobilizer control module, a security light, coil antenna, transmitter
with transponder, LF antenna and a FR receiver. The device will not
provide any visible or audible indication of unauthorized vehicle entry
(i.e., flashing lights or horn alarm).
    Mazda stated that activation of the immobilization device occurs
when the ignition is turned to the ``OFF'' position and since the
transponder is integrated into the immobilizer device, any inadvertent
activation of the device is prevented. Additionally, Mazda stated that
when the ignition is turned to the ``ON'' position, a code is
transmitted from the transponder to the immobilizer control module.
Mazda further stated that if the code from the transponder matches with
the code programmed in the immobilizer control unit, the vehicle's
engine can be started, and if the codes do not match, the engine will
be disabled. Mazda also stated that it is very difficult to defeat this
type of electronic engine immobilizer device because there are no
moving parts and there is a separate battery located in the key.
Additionally, Mazda stated that the immobilizer device will incorporate
a LED indicator that will provide information about the ``set'' and
``unset'' condition of the device. Mazda stated that when the ignition
is turned to the ``ON'' position, the LED illuminates continuously for
3 seconds to indicate the ``unset'' state of the device and when the
ignition is in the ``OFF'' position, the flashing LED indicates the
``set'' state of the device confirming that the vehicle is protected by
the immobilizer. Mazda's submission is considered a complete petition
as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements
contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.
543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.5,
Mazda provided a detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that
the device is reliable and durable since the device complied with its
specified requirements for each test. Specifically, Mazda stated that
the components of the immobilization device were tested in climatic,
mechanical and chemical environments, and for its immunity to various
electromagnetic radiation and electric conduction. Mazda stated that
the antitheft device and operation of the electronic engine immobilizer
system makes conventional theft methods ineffective, (i.e., hot-wiring
and attacking the ignition lock cylinder). Mazda also stated that there
is no way to start the vehicle by mechanically overriding the device
and that successful key duplication would be virtually impossible.
    Mazda provided data on the effectiveness of other similar antitheft
devices installed on vehicle lines in support of its belief that its
device will be at least as effective as those comparable devices.
Specifically, Mazda stated that this device was installed on certain MY
1996 Ford vehicles as standard equipment, (i.e., all Ford Mustang GT,
Cobra, Taurus LX, SHO and Sable LS models). In MY 1997, Mazda installed
its immobilizer device on the entire Ford Mustang vehicle line as
standard equipment. When comparing 1995 model year Mustang vehicle
thefts (without immobilizers) with MY 1997 Mustangs vehicle thefts
(with immobilizers), Mazda referenced the National Crime Information
Center`s (NCIC) theft information which showed that there was a 70%
reduction in theft

experienced when comparing MY 1997 Mustang vehicle thefts (with
immobilizers) to MY 1995 Mustang vehicle thefts (without immobilizers).
Mazda also stated that the Highway Loss Data Institute's (HLDI)
September 1997 Theft Loss Bulletin reported an overall theft loss
decrease of approximately 50% for both the Ford Mustang and Taurus
models upon installation of an antitheft immobilization device.
Additionally, Mazda referenced a July 2000 International Institute for
Highway Safety news release which reported that when comparing theft
loss data before and after equipping vehicles with passive immobilizer
devices, the data showed an average theft reduction of approximately
50% for vehicles with immobilizer devices.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Mazda, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Mazda CX-5 vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
    The agency also notes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Mazda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for its new vehicle line is likely to be as effective
in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR
part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Mazda provided
about its device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Mazda's
petition for exemption for the Mazda CX-5 vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with MY 2013
vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1,
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR 543.7(f) contains publication
requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543 petitions.
Advanced listing, including the release of future product nameplates,
the beginning model year for which the petition is granted and a
general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order to
notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from the
parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Mazda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR 541.5 and
541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Mazda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption.
    Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543 exemption applies only to
vehicles that belong to a line exempted under this part and equipped
with the anti-theft device on which the line's exemption is based.
Further, Sec.  543.9(c)(2) provides for the submission of petitions
``to modify an exemption to permit the use of an antitheft device
similar to but differing from the one specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Sec.
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: July 8, 2011.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-17715 Filed 7-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: April 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 75)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20016-20022]
[DOCID:fr19ap06-11]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0261, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0263, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-
0264, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0265, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0266, EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2006-0268; FRL-8159-5]
RIN 2050-AD75

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. 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 CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), if any, may be
appropriate. This rule adds six new sites to the General Superfund
Section of the NPL.

DATES: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP is May 19,
2006.

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: Terry Jeng, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and
Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation (mail code 5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund
Hotline, phone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> 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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
    G. How are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
    I. What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    A. May 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
Dockets?
    D. How Do I Access the Documents?
    E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    A. Additions to the NPL
    B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    1. What is Executive Order 12866?
    2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    1. What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    2. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    1. What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final
Rule?
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    1. What is Executive Order 13175?
    2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    1. What is Executive Order 13045?
    2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
    Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    1. What is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
    2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
    J. Congressional Review Act
    1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
    2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
    3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This 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 or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutant
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. 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, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. 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 of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (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, pollutants or contaminants. 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 a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score
and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA's role
is 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 tool to evaluate
the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutant
or contaminants 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) Pursuant to
42 U.S.C 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its
top priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This
provision of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL
include one facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to
public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
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) and generally has updated it at least annually.

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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?

    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 where that contamination has come to be
located, or from where 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 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.

H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites 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.

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. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

A. May 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.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification

numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in
section II D.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Site name                 Location         FDMS docket ID No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Klau/Buena Vista Mine.......  San Luis Obispo       EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                               County, CA.           66.
Alternate Energy Resources..  Augusta, GA.........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                                                     63.
Olin Chemical...............  Wilmington, MA......  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                                                     61.
Parkview Well...............  Grand Island, NE....  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                                                     65.
West Highway 6 & Highway 281  Hastings, NE........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                                                     64.
Quendall Terminals..........  Renton, WA..........  EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-02
                                                     68.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.

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. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.

D. How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 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. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room B102,
Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
    The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:

    Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1417.
    Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
    Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV),
U.S. EPA, Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia,
PA 19103; 215/814-5364.
    Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S.
EPA, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-
8862.
    Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA,
Records Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal
Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/353-
5821.
    Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.

    Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North
5th Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
    Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA,
999 18th Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-2466;
303/312-6463.
    Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3097.
    Denise Baker, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th
Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-4303.

E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under the Superfund sites category)

or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

A. Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds the following six sites to the NPL; all to the
General Superfund Section:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State                   Site name            City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA..........................  Klau/Buena Vista      San Luis Obispo
                               Mine.                 County.
GA..........................  Alternate Energy      Augusta.
                               Resources.
MA..........................  Olin Chemical.......  Wilmington.
NE..........................  Parkview Well.......  Grand Island.
NE..........................  West Highway 6 &      Hastings.
                               Highway 281.
WA..........................  Quendall Terminals..  Renton.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

    EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments. EPA received negative comments on
the following sites: West Highway 6 & Highway 281, Parkview Well, and
Klau/Buena Vista Mine. EPA's responses to these comments are addressed
in the ``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List
Final Rule--April 2006.''
    EPA received a comment related to four of the sites in this rule
suggesting that EPA should delay listing because of a Supreme Court
decision related to cost and liability issues for Potentially
Responsible Parties ( PRPs). This comment is not relevant to the HRS
scoring of the sites or the underlying basis for the NPL listing and is
therefore not included or addressed in the ``Support Document for the
Revised National Priorities List Final Rule--April 2006.''
    For the remainder of sites in this rule, EPA received no comments
or only comments supporting the listing of the sites to the NPL and
therefore, EPA is placing them on the NPL at this time. All comments
that were received by EPA are contained in the Headquarters Docket and
are also listed in EPA's electronic public Docket and comment system at
http://www.regulations.gov (see table above for the appropriate FDMS

Docket identification number).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

1. 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 Office of Management and Budget (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.
2. Is This Final 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.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

1. 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.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
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.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. 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.
2. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of a
hazardous substance 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 rule does not
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing
reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

1. 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 where a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to 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.
2. 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.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule?
    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation. This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on
the States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

1. 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.''
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
    This final 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 final rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

1. 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.
2. 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.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage

Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

1. 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.
2. 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.

J. Congressional Review Act

1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule 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, that 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).
2. 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
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-based 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.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
    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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.

    Dated: April 12, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
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.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

                                       Table 1.--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                State                           Site name                    City/county            Notes \(a)\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
CA..................................  Klau/Buena Vista Mine.......  San Luis Obispo County......

                                                  * * * * * * *
GA..................................  Alternate Energy Resources..  Augusta.....................

                                                  * * * * * * *
MA..................................  Olin Chemical...............  Wilmington..................

                                                  * * * * * * *
NE..................................  Parkview Well...............  Grand Island................

                                                  * * * * * * *
NE..................................  West Highway 6 & Highway 281  Hastings....................

                                                  * * * * * * *
WA..................................  Quendall Terminals..........  Renton......................

                                                 * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score
  need not be < = 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be < = 28.50)
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-3666 Filed 4-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P