[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40182-40188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20154]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-6130-9 ]
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated
with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s),
if any, may be appropriate.
This rule adds 9 new sites to the NPL, 7 to the General Superfund
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall
be August 27, 1998.
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 Keidan, phone (703) 603-8852,
State and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (mail code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, phone
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan
area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Contents
I. Background
What are CERCLA and SARA?
What is the NCP?
What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
How are Sites Listed on the NPL?
What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
How are Site Boundaries defined?
How are Sites Removed From the NPL?
Can Portions of Sites be Deleted From the NPL as They are
Cleaned up?
What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
What Documents are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets?
How do I Access the Documents?
How can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
Additions to the NPL
Status of NPL
Withdrawal of 3 Sites From Proposal to the NPL
What did EPA do With the Public Comments it Received?
IV. Executive Order 12866
What is Executive Order 12866?
Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
V. Unfunded Mandates
What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
VI. Effects on Small Businesses
What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply to this final rule?
VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
Has this rule been submitted to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
Could the effective date of this final rule change?
What could cause the effective date of this rule to change?
VIII. National Technology and Advancement Act
What is the National Technology and Advancement Act?
Does the National Technology and Advancement Act apply to this
final rule?
IX. Executive Order 13045
What is Executive Order 13045?
Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
XI. Executive Order 12875
What is Executive Order 12875 and is it applicable to this final
rule?
I. Background
What are CERCLA and SARA?
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of
hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law 99-
499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.
What is the NCP?
To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR Part
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under
[[Page 40183]]
CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
As required under Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into
account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking
removal action.'' (``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include
a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise
address releases and threatened releases 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).)
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.
However, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property.
Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or
removal action necessarily need be taken.
The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January
29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed
on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities
Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive
than at other sites.
How are Sites Listed on the NPL?
There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
(1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently
high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA promulgated as
Appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening
device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous
substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS
partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised
HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil
exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
(2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to
be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism,
provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2) requires that, to the
extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities,
one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger
to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in
the State (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).
(3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has issued a health advisory
that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its
remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the
release.
EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on
March 6, 1998 (63 FR 11331).
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.
How are Site Boundaries Defined?
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located''
(CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to
define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of
course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not
coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or
plant are not the ``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists
of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as
well as any other location to which that contamination has come to be
located, or from which that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of
[[Page 40184]]
listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the
geographic location of the contamination. For example, the ``Jones Co.
plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for
the contamination located on the plant site.
EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat
presented by a release'' will be determined by a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was
originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not
be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover
the full extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located''
before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site.
Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to
change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe
the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of
property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any
time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible
party.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or
release.
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.
To date, the Agency has deleted 175 sites from the NPL.
Can Portions of Sites be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?
In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995).
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may
have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of July 1998,
EPA has deleted portions of 11 sites.
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.
In addition to the 166 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (9 sites have been deleted based on
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an
additional 350 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of July 1998,
the CCL consists of 516 sites.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
Yes, the 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 appropriate Regional offices.
What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket?
The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for
all of the sites that were added to the NPL based on HRS scores,
Documentation Records for those sites describing the information used
to compute the scores, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect those sites, and a
list of documents referenced in each of the Documentation Records. The
Headquarters docket also contains comments received, and the Agency's
responses to those comments. The Agency's responses are contained in
the ``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final
Rule--March 1998.''
A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL
listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic
impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking
docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.
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 scores for the sites. These reference documents are available only
in the Regional dockets.
How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this notice. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
docket are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Docket for
hours.
You may also request copies from the Headquarters or appropriate
Regional docket. An informal request, rather than a formal written
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters and
Regional dockets:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office,
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington,
VA, 703/603-8917
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866,
212/637-4435
Dawn Shellenberger, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA
Library, 3rd Floor,, 841 Chestnut Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Mail Code 3PM52, 215/566-5364
[[Page 40185]]
(After July 30 contact: Kevin Wood, U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Mail Code: 3HS33, 215/814-3303)
Sherryl Decker, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA
30303, 404/562-8127
Region 5
U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management Division 7-J, Metcalfe
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312)
886-7570
Brenda Cook, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6SF-RA,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-7436
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101, 913/551-7224
David Williams, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
CO 80202-2466, 303/312-6757
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103
How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at
WWW.EPA.GOV/SUPERFUND (look under site information category) or by
contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).
III. Contents of This Final Rule
Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds 9 sites to the NPL, 7 to the General Superfund
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. The following tables
present the sites in this rule arranged alphabetically by State and
identifies their rank by group number. Table 1 contains the 7 sites in
the General Superfund Section and Table 2 contains the 2 sites in the
Federal Facilities Section. Group numbers are determined by arranging
the NPL by rank and dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a
site in Group 4 has an HRS score that falls within the range of scores
covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.
Table 1.--National Priorities List Final Rule, General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL Solitron Microwave.......... Port Salerno................................... 5/6
GA Camilla Wood Preserving Camilla........................................ 5/6
Company.
NJ Cornell Dubilier Electronics South Plainfield............................... 5
Inc.
NJ LCP Chemicals Inc........... Linden......................................... 5/6
PA Sharon Steel Corp. (Farrell Hickory Township............................... 5/6
Wks Disp Area).
TX Jasper Creosoting Company Jasper......................................... 5/6
Inc.
TX State Marine of Port Arthur. Port Arthur.................................... 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 7.
Table 2.--National Priorities List Final Rule, Federal Facilites Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Group
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC Washington Navy Yard........ Washington DC.................................. 5/6
MD Fort George G. Mead......... Odenton........................................ 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Added to the Federal Facilities Section: 2.
Status of NPL
With the new sites added in today's rule, the NPL now contains
1,193 sites, 1,040 in the General Superfund Section and 153 in the
Federal Facilities Section. With a proposed NPL rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, there are now 56 sites proposed
and awaiting final agency action, 47 in the General Superfund Section
and 9 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now
total 1,249.
Withdrawal of 3 Sites from Proposal to the NPL
EPA is withdrawing the following three sites from proposal to the
NPL: Cross County Sanitation Landfill in Patterson, New York; Lincoln
Creosote in Bossier City, Louisiana; and Monarch Tile Manufacturing,
Inc. in Florence, Alabama.
What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this rule.
Based on comments received on the proposed sites (published at 61 FR
30575, June 17, 1996, 62 FR 15594, April 1, 1997, 62 FR 50450,
September 25, 1997, and 63 FR11339, March 6, 1998), as well as
investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment),
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate.
EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any
score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the
``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final
Rule-- July 1998.''
IV. Executive Order 12866
What Is Executive Order 12866?
Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for
any ``economically significant regulatory action,'' defined as one
which would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more, or have other substantial impacts.
Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
V. Unfunded Mandates
What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L.
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
[[Page 40186]]
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to 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.
Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. This rule
will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it
imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments.
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing
does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor
does listing require any action by a private party or determine
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses
result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not
directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL.
For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million.
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
VI. Effect on Small Businesses
What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.
Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Final Rule?
While this rule revises the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical
regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As
stated above, adding a site to the NPL does not in itself require any
action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party
for the cost of any cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable
groups are affected. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to
predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of
adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of cleanup costs),
but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected
businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also
be affected.
The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this rule on the
NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within
industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste
site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses.
In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when deciding on enforcement
actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but
also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small
governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a
similar case-by-case basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting
Office?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as enacted 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 the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(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 notice, 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,
[[Page 40187]]
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.
What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule To Change?
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S.
Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v.
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of
Representatives.
If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.
VIII. National Technology and Advancement Act
What Is the National Technology and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology and Advancement Act of
1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 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, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Does the National Technology and Advancement Act Apply to This Final
Rule?
EPA is not using any new test methods or other technical standards
as part of today's rule, which adds sites to the NPL. Thus, the Agency
does not need to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards in
developing this final rule. EPA invites public comment on this
analysis.
IX. Executive Order 13045
What Is Executive Order 13045?
On April 21, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13045
entitled Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19883). Under section 5 of the Order, a federal
agency submitting a ``covered regulatory action ``to OMB for review
under Executive Order 12866 must provide information regarding the
environmental health or safety affects of the planned regulation on
children. A ``covered regulatory action'' is defined in section 2-202
as a substantive action in a rulemaking, initiated after the date of
this order or for which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published 1
year after the date of this order, that is likely to result in a rule
that may be ``economically significant'' under Executive Order 12866
and concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency
has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children.
Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
This final rule is not a ``covered regulatory action'' as defined
in the Order and accordingly is not subject to section 5 of the Order.
As discussed above this final rule does not constitute economically
significant action (i.e., it is not expected to have an annual adverse
impact of $100 million or more) under Executive Order 12866. Further,
this rule does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk
that disproportionately affects children.
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules,
are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements
related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to
the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574).
Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
This action does not impose any burden requiring OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
XI. Executive Order 12875
What Is Executive Order 12875 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule?
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.--This final rule does
not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate that
would require any prior consultation with State, local or tribal
officials under Executive Order 12875.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources,
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund,
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: July 20, 1998.
Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Acting 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. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to Part 300 are amended by adding
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
[[Page 40188]]
Table 1.--General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
FL................... Solitron Microwave...... Port Salerno................................
* * * * * *
*
GA................... Camilla Wood Preserving Camilla.....................................
Company.
* * * * * *
*
NJ................... Cornell Dubilier South Plainfield............................
Electronics Inc.
* * * * * *
*
NJ................... LCP Chemicals Inc....... Linden......................................
* * * * * *
*
PA................... Sharon Steel Corp. Hickory Township............................
(Farrell Wks Disp Area).
* * * * * *
*
TX................... Jasper Creosoting Jasper County...............................
Company Inc.
* * * * * *
*
TX................... State Marine of Port Jefferson County............................
Arthur.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes(a)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
DC................... Washington Navy Yard.... Washington DC...............................
* * * * * *
*
MD................... Fort George G. Meade.... Odenton.....................................
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 98-20154 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P