Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-09-27 · Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Final rule

14,990 words·~68 min read·/register/2006/09/27/06-8179·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036; FRL-8089-6] *p* -Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, Glyphosate, Difenzoquat, and Hexazinone; Tolerance Actions AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is revoking certain tolerances for the plant growth regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicide hexazinone. Also, EPA is modifying certain tolerances for the plant growth regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone.
In addition, EPA is establishing new tolerances for the herbicides difenzoquat and hexazinone. DATES: This regulation is effective September 27, 2006. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before November 27, 2006, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ). ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification
(ID)number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036. All documents in the docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Smith, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703)308-0048; e-mail address: *smith.jane-scott@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: • Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers. • Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers. • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g., agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users. This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document? In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this **Federal Register** document through the electronic docket at *http://www.regulations.gov* , you may access this “ **Federal Register** ” document electronically through the EPA Internet under the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . You may also access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr* . C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request? Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 27, 2006. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public docket that is described in ADDRESSES . Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0036, by one of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal* : *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail* : Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP)Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. • *Delivery* : OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The Docket Facility telephone number is
(703)305-5805. II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking? In the **Federal Register** of June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32899) (FRL-8062-7), EPA issued a proposed rule to revoke, remove, modify, and establish certain tolerances and/or tolerance exemptions for residues of the plant growth regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone. The proposal of June 7, 2006 also provided a 60-day comment period which invited public comment for consideration and for support of tolerance retention under FFDCA standards. EPA is revoking, removing, modifying, and establishing specific tolerances for residues of the plant growth regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and the herbicides glyphosate, difenzoquat, and hexazinone in or on commodities listed in the regulatory text. EPA is finalizing these tolerance actions in order to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes (including follow-up on canceled or additional uses of pesticides). As part of reregistration and when taking action on tolerances and exemptions, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances or exemptions meets the safety standards under FQPA. The safety finding determination of “reasonable certainty of no harm” is found in detail in each RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend certain tolerance actions to be implemented to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed copies of REDs and TREDs may be obtained from EPA's National Service Center for Environmental Publications (EPA/NSCEP), P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-2419; telephone number: 1-800-490-9198; fax number: 1-513-489-8695; Internet address: *http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom* and from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161; telephone number: 1-800-553-6847 or
(703)605-6000; Internet address: *http://www.ntis.gov* . Electronic copies of REDs and TREDs are available on the internet at *http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status.htm* . In this final rule, EPA is revoking certain tolerances and tolerance exemptions because these specific tolerances and exemptions correspond to uses no longer current or registered under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the United States. The tolerances revoked by this final rule are no longer necessary to cover residues of the relevant pesticides in or on domestically treated commodities or commodities treated outside but imported into the United States. It is EPA's general practice to revoke those tolerances and tolerance exemptions for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person in comments on the proposal indicates a need for the tolerance or tolerance exemption to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. Thus, it is EPA's policy to issue a final rule revoking those tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals for which there are no active registrations under FIFRA, unless any person commenting on the proposal demonstrates a need for the tolerance to cover residues in or on imported commodities or domestic commodities legally treated. Generally, EPA will proceed with the revocation of these tolerances on the grounds discussed in Unit II.A. if one of the following conditions applies: — Prior to EPA's issuance of a FFDCA section 408(f) order requesting additional data or issuance of a FFDCA section 408(d) or
(e)order revoking the tolerances on other grounds, commenters retract the comment identifying a need for the tolerance to be retained. — EPA independently verifies that the tolerance is no longer needed. — The tolerance is not supported by data that demonstrate that the tolerance meets the requirements under FQPA. This final rule does not revoke those tolerances for which EPA received comments stating a need for the tolerance to be retained. In response to the proposal published in the **Federal Register** of June 7, 2006, EPA received three comments during the 60-day public comment period, as follows: • *Comment* . A comment was received from a private citizen that expressed concern with pesticide residues in general and that animals should eat quality foods. The individual stated that pesticide residue levels should be zero. • *Agency response* . The private citizen's comment did not take issue with the Agency's conclusion that certain tolerances should be revoked. It is EPA's general practice to propose revocation of tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crop uses for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist. EPA has historically been concerned that retention of tolerances that are not necessary to cover residues in or on legally treated foods may encourage misuse of pesticides within the United States. 1. *Hexazinone* . • *Comment* . A comment was received from DuPont Crop Protection who requested that the current regional tolerances on sugarcane, cane and sugarcane molasses in 40 CFR 180.396(c), which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, be codified as general tolerances. The commenter stated that two of DuPont Crop Protection's registrations for use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida are currently active. Also, the commenter requested that EPA not revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, and meat and meat byproducts of hogs because later this year it will submit grass residue data to support a revised zero-day forage/grazing restriction (current labels show a 60-day restriction which is not considered to be practical by the Agency). The commenter stated that it expects increased residues warranting a revision of existing tolerances for both grass and hay as livestock feed commodities. In addition, the commenter stated that an analysis on current hexazinone registrations for use on cattle feed commodities conducted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services in 2005 may show that tolerances for hexazinone on meat, meat byproducts, and in milk may be exceeded based on a maximum theoretical dietary burden. • *Agency response* . Since the time of the 2002 hexazinone TRED, EPA agrees that the Agency did approve two registrations submitted by DuPont Crop Protection for use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida. Based on these registrations, EPA believes that since there are no regional sugarcane registrations that specifically exclude hexazinone use in Florida; therefore, these tolerances need not be codified as regional. Since this regulatory action was not in the original **Federal Register** proposal, recodifying the sugarcane, cane and sugarcane molasses tolerances from 40 CFR 180.396(c) to
(a)as general tolerances will need to be proposed separately in a future action. Moreover, in its comment, DuPont Crop Protection did not take issue with the Agency's proposal to modify the sugarcane tolerances. Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites were <0.35 parts per million
(ppm)in or on sugarcane. Based on the combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the enforcement method for parent plus metabolites, the Agency determined that the tolerance for sugarcane, cane should be increased to 0.6 ppm. Also, based on available sugarcane processing data, the Agency determined that residues of hexazinone and its metabolites concentrated 32-fold to final (blackstrap) molasses, the form of molasses typically fed to livestock. After adjusting for the 2.0x degree of exaggeration used in the processing study, the Agency determined that while the calculated residue was greater than the recommended tolerance for the raw agricultural commodity (sugarcane, cane), it was below the current tolerance level for sugarcane molasses and should be decreased to 4.0 ppm. Therefore, in 40 CFR 180.396(c) EPA is increasing the tolerance for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on sugarcane, cane from 0.2 to 0.6 ppm and decreasing the tolerance in or on sugarcane molasses from 5.0 to 4.0 ppm, and revising sugarcane molasses to sugarcane, molasses. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. When EPA proposed to revoke the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.396 for fat of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, and meat and meat byproducts of hogs, it did so based on available exaggerated feeding data from which the Agency determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite hexazinone residues of concern in livestock from treated feed. However, because DuPont Crop Protection will submit new data later this year and information from the State of Florida may need to be considered by the Agency, EPA will not revoke these specific fat, meat, and meat byproduct tolerances at this time. When the information from the State of Florida and submitted data from DuPont Crop Protection have been reviewed, EPA will re-evaluate these tolerances under FFDCA. If data are not submitted in the near future or if data adequate to support a safety finding are lacking, EPA intends to revoke the tolerances on cattle, fat; sheep, fat; hog, meat; and hog, meat byproducts in 40 CFR 180.396. The TRED mentions the need for additional method validation of Method AMR 3783-6 for determining hexazinone (parent and metabolite) levels in milk and livestock tissues. The method has undergone successful independent validation and radiovalidation studies. Additional validation by EPA laboratories is not required. The method is considered adequate for enforcement purposes for residues of hexazinone (and metabolites) in milk and livestock tissues. According to the TRED, the tolerance expression, which is currently expressed as hexazinone and its metabolites (calculated as hexazinone) in 40 CFR 180.396(a) for plant, animal, and milk commodities for general tolerances should be modified to include all the specific metabolites in plants, animal tissue and milk. Consequently, EPA is separating and recodifying plant, animal, and milk tolerances from 40 CFR 180.396(a) to (a)(1), (a)(2), and (a)(3), respectively. In the **Federal Register** proposal of June 7, 2006, the C-1 metabolite was inadvertently included in 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3). After correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (62.5x) for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep, the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its metabolites ranged as high as 0.09 ppm (just below the sum of the LOQs or 0.1 ppm), and therefore meat and meat byproduct tolerances should be maintained in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(2) at 0.1 ppm for cattle, goats, horses, and sheep. In addition, after correction of the exaggerated feeding dose (62.5x) for cattle, the Agency determined that residue levels of hexazinone and its metabolites in whole milk ranged as high as 0.164 ppm. Based on the enforcement method, the sum of the combined LOQs for hexazinone and its metabolites, EPA is increasing the tolerance in the newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3) for the combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on milk from 0.1 to 0.2 ppm. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Available data indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites were <0.3 ppm in or on blueberries and <0.35 ppm in or on pineapples. Based on the combined LOQs (0.55 ppm) of the enforcement method for parent plus metabolites, EPA is increasing the tolerances in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on blueberry from 0.2 to 0.6 ppm and pineapple (whole fruit) from 0.5 to 0.6 ppm, and revising pineapple (whole fruit) to pineapple. The Agency determined that the increased tolerance is safe; i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. Based on available data that indicate combined residues of hexazinone and its regulated metabolites as high as 1.46 ppm in or on alfalfa seed, the Agency determined that a tolerance should be established at 2.0 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing a tolerance in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1) for combined hexazinone residues of concern in or on alfalfa, seed at 2.0 ppm. In addition, EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.396(a) to conform to current Agency practice as follows: alfalfa green forage to alfalfa, forage; grass, range and grass, pasture to grass, forage, and grass, hay. 2. *Glyphosate* . • *Comment* . A comment was received from Monsanto Company generally agreeing with the proposed tolerance changes to glyphosate in 40 CFR 180.364. Monsanto also wanted to alert the Agency of the recent changes in the CODEX Maximum Residue Limits
(MRLs)for glyphosate finalized by the CODEX Alimentarious Commission in July of 2006. Monsanto provided a detailed list of suggested changes to the U.S. tolerance regulation for glyphosate (concerning cereal, grains, cotton seed, meat byproducts, kiwifruit, and rapeseed) to achieve better alignment with the newly established CODEX MRLs. Monsanto did note two modifications that should be made in 40 CFR 180.364: —To alphabetize the commodity cacao beans. —Add the term “except corn forage” to the Crop group 16 forage, fodder, and straw tolerance to eliminate a conflict with the individual tolerance for “corn, field, forage”. • *Agency response* . The Agency appreciates the support of Monsanto and the alert concerning the changes in the CODEX MRLs. Since the CODEX MRLs were adopted during the comment period of the proposal, any tolerance modifications made in attempt to harmonize with CODEX will need to be proposed separately for comment. The Agency will address the CODEX harmonization in a future proposal and consider Monsanto's detailed recommendations for CODEX harmonization of tolerances for glyphosate at that time. Consequently, the Agency is not taking action on the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 on kiwifruit, and cattle and hog liver as proposed. EPA agrees with alphabetizing cacao bean and revising the crop group 16 to include the term “except corn forage” in 40 CFR 180.364. EPA is revising commodity terminology in 40 CFR 180.364 to conform to current Agency practice as follows: Hop, dried cone to hop, dried cones; wheat, milling fractions, (except flour) to wheat, bran; wheat, middlings; and wheat, shorts; grain, cereal, stover and straw, group to grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except corn forage; vegetable, bulb, group to vegetable, bulb, group 3; vegetable, foliage of legume except soybean, subgroup 7A to vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A, except soybean; vegetable, fruiting, group to vegetable, fruiting, group 8; vegetable, leafy, group to vegetable, leafy, group 4; and vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group (except sugar beet tops) to vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops. The RED recommended that alfalfa (fresh and hay), clover and other non-grass animal feeds be consolidated in the corresponding crop group “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” at 100 ppm. Since the RED was published, the “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” was established; however, due to changes in the use patterns and grazing intervals the corresponding tolerance level is 400 ppm. Also, the existing and conflicting tolerances for “alfalfa, hay” (400 ppm) and “alfalfa, forage” (175 ppm), respectively, should be removed since the existing tolerance on “animal feed, nongrass, group 18” (400 ppm) covers these animal feed items. This was originally proposed by the EPA June 18, 2003 (68 FR 36472) (FRL-7308-8). Therefore, EPA is removing the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.364 on alfalfa, forage at 175 ppm and alfalfa, hay at 400 ppm, because they are no longer needed and their commodity uses are covered by the existing group tolerance. No comments were received by the Agency concerning the following. 3. *p-Chlorophenoxyacetic acid* . The Agency canceled the last registered use for *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid on tomato in May 1995. Therefore, the Agency is revoking the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.202(a)(1) for combined residues of the plant regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite *p* -chlorophenol in or on tomato, removing paragraph (a)(1), and recodifying existing paragraph (a)(2) as paragraph (a). Based on the available data that indicate combined residues of *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite *p* -chlorophenol in or on mung bean sprouts will not exceed 0.2 ppm, the Agency determined that the tolerance should be lowered to 0.2 ppm. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance for combined residues of the plant regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite *p* -chlorophenol to inhibit embryonic root development in or on bean, mung, sprouts from 2.0 to 0.2 ppm in newly recodified 40 CFR 180.202(a). 4. *Difenzoquat* . Based on available field trial data that indicate residues of difenzoquat were non-detectable (<0.05 ppm) in or on barley grain, as high as 4.0 ppm in or on barley straw, and as high as 4.2 ppm in or on wheat straw, the Agency determined that these tolerances should be decreased to 0.05 ppm, 5.0 ppm, and 5.0 ppm, respectively. Therefore, EPA is decreasing the tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 for residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, grain from 0.2 to 0.05 ppm; barley straw from 20.0 to 5.0 ppm; and wheat, straw from 20.0 to 5.0 ppm. Processing data for wheat grain and aspirated grain fractions indicate that residues of difenzoquat concentrated 4-fold in wheat bran and 4.6-fold in shorts, and minimal concentration occurred in middlings. Residues did not concentrate in flour. The wheat processing data are also applicable to barley. Based on those concentration factors and the reassessed tolerance of 0.05 ppm for wheat grain, the Agency determined that tolerances for both wheat bran and shorts should be established at 0.25 ppm. Therefore, EPA is establishing tolerances in 40 CFR 180.369 at 0.25 ppm for residues of difenzoquat in or on wheat, bran and wheat, shorts. In addition, because the wheat processing data are translated to barley, EPA is establishing a tolerance in 40 CFR 180.369 for residues of difenzoquat in or on barley, bran at 0.25 ppm. B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? EPA may issue a regulation establishing, modifying, or revoking a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). In this final rule, EPA is establishing, modifying, and revoking tolerances to implement the tolerance recommendations made during the reregistration and tolerance reassessment processes, and as follow-up on canceled uses of pesticides. As part of these processes, EPA is required to determine whether each of the amended tolerances meets the safety standards under FQPA. The safety finding determination is found in detail in each RED and TRED for the active ingredient. REDs and TREDs recommend the implementation of certain tolerance actions, including modifications to reflect current use patterns, to meet safety findings, and change commodity names and groupings in accordance with new EPA policy. Printed and electronic copies of the REDs and TREDs are available as provided in Unit II.A. EPA has issued TREDs for *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid, difenzoquat, and hexazinone. Glyphosate tolerances were reassessed post-FQPA as part of the Agency's determinations on April 11, 1997 (62 FR 17723) to establish new glyphosate uses and therefore a TRED to reassess its tolerances was not needed. All of these active ingredients had REDs which were completed prior to FQPA. REDs and TREDs contain the Agency's evaluation of the data base for these pesticides, including statements regarding additional data on the active ingredients that may be needed to confirm the potential human health and environmental risk assessments associated with current product uses, and REDs state conditions under which these uses and products will be eligible for reregistration. The REDs and TREDs recommended the establishment, modification, and/or revocation of specific tolerances. RED and TRED recommendations such as establishing or modifying tolerances, and in some cases revoking tolerances, are the result of assessment under the FQPA standard of “reasonable certainty of no harm.” However, tolerance revocations recommended in REDs and TREDs that are made final in this document do not need such assessment when the tolerances are no longer necessary. EPA's general practice is to revoke tolerances for residues of pesticide active ingredients on crops for which FIFRA registrations no longer exist and on which the pesticide may therefore no longer be used in the United States. Nonetheless, EPA will establish and maintain tolerances even when corresponding domestic uses are canceled if the tolerances, which EPA refers to as “import tolerances,” are necessary to allow importation into the United States of food containing such pesticide residues. However, where there are no imported commodities that require these import tolerances, the Agency believes it is appropriate to revoke tolerances for unregistered pesticides in order to prevent potential misuse. When EPA establishes tolerances for pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities, the Agency gives consideration to possible pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry, and/or eggs produced by animals that are fed agricultural products (for example, grain or hay) containing pesticides residues (40 CFR 180.6). If there is no reasonable expectation of finite pesticide residues in or on meat, milk, poultry, or eggs, then tolerances do not need to be established for these commodities (40 CFR 180.6(b) and 180.6 (c)). C. When Do These Actions Become Effective? These actions become effective on the date of publication of this final rule in the **Federal Register** because their associated uses have been canceled for several years. The Agency believes that treated commodities have had sufficient time for passage through the channels of trade. Any commodities listed in the regulatory text of this document that are treated with the pesticides subject to this final rule, and that are in the channels of trade following the tolerance revocations, shall be subject to FFDCA section 408(1)(5), as established by FQPA. Under this section, any residues of these pesticides in or on such food shall not render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Food and Drug Administration that both: 1. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA. 2. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the pesticide was applied to such food. III. Are There Any International Trade Issues Raised by this Final Action? EPA considers CODEX MRLs in setting U.S. tolerances and in reassessing them. MRLs are established by the CODEX Committee on Pesticide Residues, a committee within the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, an international organization formed to promote the coordination of international food standards. When possible, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with CODEX MRLs. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a CODEX MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain in a **Federal Register** document the reasons for departing from the CODEX level. EPA's effort to harmonize with CODEX MRLs is summarized in the tolerance reassessment section of individual REDs. EPA has developed guidance concerning submissions for import tolerance support (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3). This guidance will be made available to interested persons. Electronic copies are available on the Internet at *http://www.epa.gov* . On the EPA Home Page select “Laws, Regulations & Dockets,” then select “Regulations and Proposed Rules” and then look up the entry for this document under “ **Federal Register** —Environmental Documents.” You can also go directly to the “ **Federal Register** ” listings at *http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr* . IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews In this final rule EPA establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(e), and also modifies and revokes specific tolerances established under FFDCA section 408. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has exempted these types of actions (i.e., establishment and modification of a tolerance and tolerance revocation for which extraordinary circumstances do not exist) from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled *Regulatory Planning and Review* (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled *Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use* (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq* ., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA)(Public Law 104-4). Nor does it require any special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled *Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations* (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled *Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks* (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-13, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)(5 U.S.C. 601 *et seq* .), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels, expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were published on May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and on December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking into account this analysis, and available information concerning the pesticides listed in this final rule, the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In a memorandum dated May 25, 2001, EPA determined that eight conditions must all be satisfied in order for an import tolerance or tolerance exemption revocation to adversely affect a significant number of small entity importers, and that there is a negligible joint probability of all eight conditions holding simultaneously with respect to any particular revocation. (This Agency document is available in the docket for this final rule). Furthermore, for the pesticides named in this final rule, the Agency knows of no extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present revocations that would change EPA's previous analysis. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on 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, entitled *Federalism* (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 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.” This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any “tribal implications” as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled *Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments* (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, 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.” This rule 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 rule. V. Congressional Review Act The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 *et seq* ., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit 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 this final rule in the **Federal Register** . This final rule is not a “major rule ”as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: September 20, 2006. James J. Jones, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs. Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 2. In § 180.202, paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 180.202 *p* -Chlorophenoxyacetic acid; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . A tolerance is established for the combined residues of the plant regulator *p* -chlorophenoxyacetic acid and its metabolite *p* -chlorophenol to inhibit embryonic root development in or on the following food commodity: Commodity Parts per million Bean, mung, sprouts 0.2 3. In § 180.364, the table in paragraph
(a)is revised to read as follows: § 180.364 Glyphosate; tolerances for residues.
(a)* * * Commodity Parts per million Acerola 0.2 Alfalfa, seed 0.5 Almond, hulls 25 Aloe vera 0.5 Ambarella 0.2 Animal feed, nongrass, group 18 400 Artichoke, globe 0.2 Asparagus 0.5 Atemoya 0.2 Avocado 0.2 Bamboo, shoots 0.2 Banana 0.2 Barley, bran 30 Barley, grain 20 Beet, sugar, dried pulp 25 Beet, sugar, roots 10 Beet, sugar, tops 10 Berry, group 13 0.2 Betelnut 1.0 Biriba 0.2 Blimbe 0.2 Borage, seed 0.1 Breadfruit 0.2 Cacao bean 0.2 Cactus, fruit 0.5 Cactus, pads 0.5 Canistel 0.2 Canola, meal 15 Canola, seed 10 Cattle, kidney 4.0 Cattle, liver 0.5 Chaya 1.0 Cherimoya 0.2 Citrus, dried pulp 1.5 Coconut 0.1 Coffee, bean 1.0 Corn, field, forage 6.0 Corn, field, grain 1.0 Cotton, gin byproducts 175 Cotton, undelinted seed 35 Cranberry 0.2 Crambe, seed 0.1 Custard apple 0.2 Date 0.2 Dokudami 2.0 Durian 0.2 Egg 0.05 Epazote 1.3 Feijoa 0.2 Fig 0.2 Fish 0.25 Flax, meal 8.0 Flax, seed 4.0 Fruit, citrus, group 10 0.5 Fruit, pome, group 11 0.2 Fruit, stone, group 12 0.2 Galangal, root 0.2 Ginger, white, flower 0.2 Goat, kidney 4.0 Goat, liver 0.5 Gourd, buffalo, seed 0.1 Governor's plum 0.2 Gow kee, leaves 0.2 Grain, aspirated fractions 100 Grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw, group 16, except corn forage 100 Grain, cereal, group 15, except barley, field corn, grain sorghum, oat and wheat 0.1 Grape 0.2 Grass, forage, fodder and hay, group 17 300 Guava 0.2 Herbs subgroup 19A 0.2 Hog, kidney 4.0 Hog, liver 0.5 Hop, dried cones 7.0 Horse, kidney 4.0 Horse, liver 0.5 Ilama 0.2 Imbe 0.2 Imbu 0.2 Jackfruit 0.2 Jaboticaba 0.2 Jojoba, seed 0.1 Juneberry 0.2 Kava, roots 0.2 Kenaf, forage 200 Kiwifruit 0.2 Lesquerella, seed 0.1 Leucaena, forage 200 Lingonberry 0.2 Longan 0.2 Lychee 0.2 Mamey apple 0.2 Mango 0.2 Mangosteen 0.2 Marmaladebox 0.2 Meadowfoam, seed 0.1 Mioga, flower 0.2 Mustard, seed 0.1 Nut, pine 1.0 Nut, tree, group 14 1.0 Oat, grain 20 Okra 0.5 Olive 0.2 Oregano, Mexican, leaves 2.0 Palm heart 0.2 Palm heart, leaves 0.2 Palm, oil 0.1 Papaya 0.2 Papaya, mountain 0.2 Passionfruit 0.2 Pawpaw 0.2 Peanut 0.1 Peanut, forage 0.5 Peanut, hay 0.5 Pepper leaf, fresh leaves 0.2 Peppermint, tops 200 Perilla, tops 1.8 Persimmon 0.2 Pineapple 0.1 Pistachio 1.0 Pomegranate 0.2 Poultry, meat 0.1 Poultry, meat byproducts 1.0 Pulasan 0.2 Quinoa, grain 5.0 Rambutan 0.2 Rapeseed, meal 15 Rapeseed, seed 10 Rose apple 0.2 Safflower, seed 0.1 Salal 0.2 Sapodilla 0.2 Sapote, black 0.2 Sapote, mamey 0.2 Sapote, white 0.2 Sesame, seed 0.1 Sheep, kidney 4.0 Sheep, liver 0.5 Shellfish 3.0 Sorghum, grain, grain 15 Soursop 0.2 Soybean, forage 100 Soybean, hay 200 Soybean, hulls 100 Soybean, seed 20 Spanish lime 0.2 Spearmint, tops 200 Spice subgroup 19B 7.0 Star apple 0.2 Starfruit 0.2 Stevia, dried leaves 1.0 Strawberry 0.2 Sugar apple 0.2 Sugarcane, cane 2.0 Sugarcane, molasses 30 Sunflower, seed 0.1 Surinam cherry 0.2 Tamarind 0.2 Tea, dried 1.0 Tea, instant 7.0 Teff, grain 5.0 Ti, leaves 0.2 Ti, roots 0.2 Ugli fruit 0.5 Vegetable, leafy, brassica, group 5 0.2 Vegetable, bulb, group 3 0.2 Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9 0.5 Vegetable, foliage of legume, subgroup 7A, except soybean 0.2 Vegetable, fruiting, group 8 0.1 Vegetable, leafy, group 4 0.2 Vegetable, leaves of root and tuber, group 2, except sugar beet tops 0.2 Vegetable, legume, group 6, except soybean 5.0 Vegetable, root and tuber, group 1, except sugar beet 0.2 Wasabi, roots 0.2 Water spinach, tops 0.2 Watercress, upland 0.2 Wax jambu 0.2 Wheat, bran 20 Wheat, grain 5.0 Wheat, middlings 20 Wheat, shorts 20 Yacon, tuber 0.2 4. Section 180.369 is revised as follows: § 180.369 Difenzoquat; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* . Tolerances are established for residues of difenzoquat (1,2-dimethyl-3,5-diphenyl-1 *H* -pyrazolium ion), derived from application of the methyl sulfate salt and calculated as the cation, in or on the following raw agricultural commodities: Commodity Parts per million Barley, bran 0.25 Barley, grain 0.05 Barley, straw 5.0 Cattle, fat 0.05 Cattle, meat 0.05 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.05 Goat, fat 0.05 Goat, meat 0.05 Goat, meat byproducts 0.05 Hog, fat 0.05 Hog, meat 0.05 Hog, meat byproducts 0.05 Horse, fat 0.05 Horse, meat 0.05 Horse, meat byproducts 0.05 Poultry, fat 0.05 Poultry, meat 0.05 Poultry, meat byproducts 0.05 Sheep, fat 0.05 Sheep, meat 0.05 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.05 Wheat, bran 0.25 Wheat, grain 0.05 Wheat, shorts 0.25 Wheat, straw 5.0
(b)*Section 18 emergency exemptions* . [Reserved]
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . [Reserved]
(d)*Indirect or inadvertent residues* . [Reserved] 5. In § 180.396, paragraphs
(a)and
(c)are revised to read as follows: § 180.396 Hexazinone; tolerances for residues.
(a)*General* .
(1)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione) and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], D [3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1 *H* ,3 *H* ,5 *H* )-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1 *H* ,3 *H* ,5 *H* )-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following commodities: Commodity Parts per million Alfalfa, forage 2.0 Alfalfa, hay 8.0 Alfalfa, seed 2.0 Blueberry 0.6 Grass, forage 10.0 Pineapple 0.6
(2)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione) and its animal tissue metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], and F (3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione) (calculated as hexazinone) in the following food commodities: Commodity Parts per million Cattle, fat 0.1 Cattle, meat 0.1 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.1 Goat, fat 0.1 Goat, meat 0.1 Goat, meat byproducts 0.1 Hog, fat 0.1 Hog, meat 0.1 Hog, meat byproducts 0.1 Horse, fat 0.1 Horse, meat 0.1 Horse, meat byproducts 0.1 Sheep, fat 0.1 Sheep, meat 0.1 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.1
(3)Tolerances are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione) and its metabolites; B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], C-2 [3-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione] and F (3-cyclohexyl-6-amino-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione) (calculated as hexazinone) in milk: Commodity Parts per million Milk 0.2
(c)*Tolerances with regional registrations* . Tolerances with regional registration, as defined in § 180.1(n) and which excludes use of hexazinone on sugarcane in Florida, are established for the combined residues of hexazinone (3-cyclohexyl-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione and its plant metabolites; A [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], B [3-cyclohexyl-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], C [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-6-(methylamino)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-(1 *H* ,3 *H* )-dione], D [(3-cyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1 *H* ,3 *H* ,5 *H* )-trione], and E [3-(4-hydroxycyclohexyl)-1-methyl-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-(1 *H* ,3 *H* ,5 *H* )-trione] (calculated as hexazinone) in the following commodities: Commodity Parts per milliom Sugarcane, cane 0.6 Sugarcane, molasses 4.0 [FR Doc. E6-15840 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 300 [EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0250, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0012; FRL-8223-3] RIN 2050-AD75 National Priorities List, Final Rule 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 five sites to the General Superfund Section of the NPL. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date for this amendment to the NCP is October 27, 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
(703)603-8852, State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch; Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.; Washington, DC 20460; or the Superfund Hotline, phone
(800)424-9346 or
(703)412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background A. What are CERCLA and SARA? B. What is the NCP? C. What is the National Priorities List (NPL)? D. How are Sites Listed on the NPL? E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL? F. 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. Restore Site to NPL C. Site Name Change D. 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. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 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. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time of listing. 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. However, the NPL site is not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily 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. In addition, the site name is merely used to help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. 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, the HRS inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore 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, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any time after it 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 *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 City/state FDMS docket ID number ASARCO Taylor Springs, Taylor Springs, IL EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0255. Ringwood Mines/Landfill Ringwood, NJ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0252. Matteo & Sons, Inc Thorofare, NJ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0247. Pesticide Warehouse I Arecibo, PR EPA-HQ-SFUND-2004-0012. Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination Maunabo, PR EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0250. 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 3340, Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-1744. The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows: Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343. 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. 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 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above). III. Contents of This Final Rule A. Additions to the NPL This final rule adds the following five sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund Section: State Site name City/county IL ASARCO Taylor Springs Taylor Springs. NJ Ringwood Mines/Landfill Ringwood. NJ Matteo & Sons, Inc Thorofare. PR Pesticide Warehouse I Arecibo. PR Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination Maunabo. B. Restore Site to NPL Pursuant to CERCLA § 105(e) and 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3), whenever there has been a significant release of hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants from a site that has been deleted from the NPL, EPA can restore the site to the NPL without application of the HRS. EPA is restoring to the NPL the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site in Passaic, New Jersey. This action was proposed on April 19, 2006 (71 FR 20052). The Ringwood Mines/Landfill site was originally added to the NPL on September 1, 1983 and deleted from the NPL on November 2, 1994. C. Site Name Change The Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination site in Maunabo, Puerto Rico, was proposed to the NPL under a different name. The former name was Maunabo Urbano Public Wells (see Proposed Rule at 71 FR 20052, April 19, 2006). EPA believes the new name, Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination, more accurately identifies the site. D. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received? EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and responses to comments are below. EPA received comments from Ford Motor Company regarding the restoration of the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site to the NPL. Ford Motor Company did not object to restoring the site to the NPL. Ford, however, did point out what they believed to be some inaccuracies in EPA's narrative summary. In response, EPA has updated the narrative summary to more accurately reflect the site's history and current conditions. In addition, EPA received one comment related to the Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination site from the Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO). PRIDCO commented that, although it was not opposed to listing, it should not be considered a PRP for the site, and that the facilities located on PRIDCO property are not sources of the contamination. Further, PRIDCO was only an owner of the land and structures, not an operator of the industries located at the facilities. In response, this comment has no effect on the score. The identification of PRPs is not part of an HRS evaluation or listing of a site. Listing does not reflect a judgment on the activities of site owners, nor does it assign liability (48 FR 40759, September 8, 1983). EPA also received a comment that was not directed at any particular site. The comment suggested that this listing is inconsistent with the separation of powers doctrine and listing these sites should only be done by Congress. The Supreme Court has stated that “when Congress confers decisionmaking authority upon agencies [it] must lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is directed to conform.” *Whitman* v. *American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc.,* 531 U.S. 457, 472
(2001)(internal citation and punctuation omitted). The Court also noted that “[i]n the history of the Court we have found the requisite ‘intelligible principle’ lacking in only two statutes, one of which provided literally no guidance for the exercise of discretion, and the other of which conferred authority to regulate the entire economy on the basis of no more precise a standard than stimulating the economy by assuring ‘fair competition.’ ” *Id.* at 474. CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(A) provides several considerations for EPA when “determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United States” and listing decisions are based upon these considerations, under CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B). Accordingly, EPA may properly make NPL listing determinations. For the remainder of sites in this rule, EPA received no relevant comments, 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 *www.regulations.gov.* 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 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 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: September 20, 2006. Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows: PART 300—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by adding the following sites in alphabetical order to read as follows: Appendix B to Part 300—National Priorities List Table 1.—General Superfund Section State Site name City/county Notes
(a)* * * * * * * IL ASARCO Taylor Springs Taylor Springs * * * * * * * NJ Ringwood Mines/Landfill Ringwood * * * * * * * NJ Matteo & Sons, Inc. Thorofare * * * * * * * PR Pesticide Warehouse I Arecibo * * * * * * * PR Maunabo Area Ground Water Contamination Maunabo * * * * * * *
(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. E6-15858 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 73 [DA 06-1759; MB Docket No. 05-9; RM-11141; RM-11242; MB Docket No. 05-10; RM-11140; RM-11241; RM-11279] Radio Broadcasting Services; Albany, Arlington, Athena, Diamond Lake, and Eugene, Oregon, Goldendale, Washington, Hermiston, Ione, La Grande, Lebanon, Monument; Paisley, Prairie City, Prineville, and Sisters, The Dalles, and Tualatin, Oregon, Walla Walla, Washington and Weiser, Idaho AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 1.420(j) of the Commission's Rules, this document grants a Settlement Agreement filed by Two Hearts Communications, LLC and SSR Communications, Inc., requesting the allotment of Channel 280C1 at Monument, Oregon, as its first local service and Channel 260C at Prairie City, Oregon, as its first local service. This document also substitutes Channel *247C1 for Channel *280C1 at Weiser, Idaho and allots Channel 267C1 at Prineville, Oregon, as its third FM commercial broadcast service. The reference coordinates for Channel 280C1 at Monument are 44-49-09 NL and 119-25-11 WL. The reference coordinates for Channel 260C at Prairie City are 44-17-47 NL and 118-44-22 WL. This site is located 18.5 kilometers (11.5 miles) south of Prairie City. The reference coordinates for Channel *247C1 at Weiser are 44-20-39 NL and 117-07-14 WL. This site is located 16 kilometers (9.9 miles) northwest of Weiser. The reference coordinates for Channel 267C1 at Prineville are 44-20-48 NL and 120-22-29 WL. This site is located 37.6 kilometers (23.4 miles) east of Prineville. *See* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . DATES: Effective October 20, 2006. ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau,
(202)418-2180. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's *Report and Order* , MB Docket Nos. 05-9 and 05-10, adopted August 31, 2006, and released September 5, 2006. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or *http.//www.BCPIWEB.com.* The Commission will send a copy of this *Report and Order* in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). Additionally, this document grants a counterproposal filed by Two Hearts Communications, LLC, by substituting Channel 264C2 for Channel 264C3 at Walla Walla, Washington, reallotting Channel 264C2 from Walla Walla, Washington to Athena, Oregon, as the community's first local service and modifying the Station KHSS license to reflect to this change. The reference coordinates for Channel 264C2 at Athena are 45-47-41 NL and 118-10-06 WL. This site is located 25.2 kilometers (15.7 miles) east of Athena. To accommodate the Athena reallotment, this document also substitutes Channel 261A for Channel 263A at Hermiston, Oregon and modifies the Station KQFM license accordingly; substitutes Channel 225C1 for Channel 260C1 at La Grande, Oregon and modifies the Station KWRL license accordingly; substitutes Channel 295C2 for vacant Channel 261C2 at Arlington, Oregon; and allots Channel 258A at Ione, Oregon, as its first local service. Channel 261A can be allotted to Hermiston at Station KQFM's current licensed site, 45-51-57 NL and 119-18-38 WL. This site is located 3.1 kilometers (1.9 miles) northwest of Hermiston. Channel 225C1 can be allotted to La Grande at Station KWRL's current licensed site, 45-12-59 NL and 118-00-00 WL. This site is located 14.3 kilometers (8.9 miles) southeast of La Grande. The reference coordinates for Channel 295C2 at Arlington are 45-33-52 NL and 120-19-00 WL. The site is located 19.9 kilometers (12.3 miles) southwest of Arlington. The reference coordinates for Channel 258A at Ione are 45-30-12 NL and 119-49-36 WL. This document also dismisses the counterproposal jointly filed by Portland Broadcasting, L.L.C, licensee of Station KXPC-FM, Lebanon, Oregon, Columbia Gorge Broadcasters, Inc., licensee of Station KACI-FM, The Dalles, Oregon, M.S.W. Communications, LLC, licensee of Station KMSW(FM), The Dalles, Oregon, and Extra Mile Media, Inc., licensee of Station KHPE(FM), Albany, Oregon, requesting the substitution of Channel 250C2 for Channel 249C2 at The Dalles, Oregon, reallotment of Channel 250C2 from The Dalles to Tualatin, Oregon, as the community's first local service and modification of the Station KACI-FM license accordingly; substitution of Channel 300C for Channel 250C at Eugene, Oregon and modification of the Station KNRQ-FM license accordingly; substitution of Channel 279C for Channel 300C at Albany and modification of the Station KHPE license accordingly; substitution of Channel 251A for vacant Channel 299A at Diamond Lake, Oregon; reallotment of Channel 279C from Lebanon to Paisley, Oregon, as the community's first local service and a first local aural broadcast service to 2,287 persons, and modification of the Station KXPC-FM license accordingly; substitution of Channel 272C2 for Channel 224C3 at The Dalles, Oregon and modification of the FM Station KSMW license accordingly; and substitution of Channel 300C2 for Channel 272C2 at Goldendale, Washington and modification of the FM Station KYYT license accordingly. List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73 Radio, Radio broadcasting. As stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as follows: PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES 1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336. § 73.202 [Amended] 2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Idaho, is amended by removing Channel *280C1 and by adding Channel *247C1 at Weiser. 3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oregon, is amended by removing Channel 261C2 and by adding Channel 295C2 at Arlington; by adding Athena, Channel 264C2; by removing Channel 263A and by adding Channel 261A at Hermiston; by removing Channel 260C1 and by adding Channel 225C1 at La Grande; by adding Monument, Channel 280C1; by adding Prairie City, Channel 260C; and by adding Channel 267C1 at Prineville. 4. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Washington, is amended by removing Channel 264C3 at Walla Walla. Federal Communications Commission. John A. Karousos, Assistant Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau. [FR Doc. 06-8179 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 17
36 references not yet in our index
  • 40 CFR 180
  • 40 CFR 178
  • 40 CFR 2
  • 40 CFR 180.396(c)
  • 40 CFR 180.396
  • 40 CFR 180.396(a)
  • 40 CFR 180.396(a)(3)
  • 40 CFR 180.396(a)(2)
  • 40 CFR 180.396(a)(1)
  • 40 CFR 180.364
  • 40 CFR 180.202(a)(1)
  • 40 CFR 180.202(a)
  • 40 CFR 180.369
  • 40 CFR 180.6
  • 40 CFR 180.6(b)
  • Pub. L. 104-4
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 40 CFR 300
  • 42 USC 9601-9675
  • Pub. L. 99-499
  • 100 Stat. 1613
  • 40 CFR 300.425(c)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2)
  • 40 CFR 300.5
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)
  • 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)
  • 531 U.S. 457
  • 40 CFR 9
  • Pub. L. 104-113
  • 462 U.S. 919
  • 86 F.3d 1214
  • 42 USC 9601-9657
  • 47 CFR 73
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Final rule
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 272
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
Fed. Reg.Notices
SCOTUS531 U.S. 457
SCOTUS462 U.S. 919
F. App'x86 F.3d 1214
Cites 53 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.