[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50442-50447]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25095]
[[Page 50441]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 300
National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Final
Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 50442]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-5895-8]
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 6 new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund
Section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall
be October 27, 1997.
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, 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, (703) 603-8852, 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
What did EPA do with the public comments it received?
IV. Regulatory Issues
A. Executive Order 12866
What is Executive Order 12866?
Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 review?
B. Unfunded Mandates
What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
C. Effects on Small Businesses
What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply to this final rule?
Has this rule been submitted to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
V. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
Could the effective date of this final rule change?
What could cause the effective date of this rule to change?
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''), Pub. L. No.
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
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. See Report of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senate Rep. No. 96-848, 96th
Cong., 2d Sess. 60 (1980), 48 FR 40659 (September 8, 1983).
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.
[[Page 50443]]
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
April 1, 1997 (62 FR 15572).
What Happens to Sites on the NPL
A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'')
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions. *
* *'' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) placing
a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be expended.'' EPA
may pursue other appropriate authorities to remedy the releases,
including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.
How Are Site Boundaries Defined
The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms;
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further
evaluation), for it to do so.
Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any
area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located''
(CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to
define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of
course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as
part of that HRS analysis.
When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site
by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not
coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or
plant are not the ``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists
of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as
well as any other location to which that contamination has come to be
located, or from which that contamination came.
In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property
owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of listing. Also, the site name is
merely used to help identify the geographic location of the
contamination. For example, the ``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.
[[Page 50444]]
To date, the Agency has deleted 149 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 September
1997, EPA has deleted portions of 6 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 142 sites that have been deleted from the NPL
because they have been cleaned up (7 sites have been deleted based on
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an
additional 305 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of September
1997, the CCL consists of 447 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
five of the final 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. For
the site added to the NPL based on ATSDR Health Advisory criteria, the
Headquarters docket contains the nomination package which includes the
ATSDR Health Advisory for the site. For all sites, 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--September
1997.''
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, for sites added to the NPL based on HRS
scores, 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
appearance of this document. 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
Diane McCreary, Region 3, U.S. EPA Library, 3rd Floor, 841 Chestnut
Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, 215/566-
5250
Kathy Piselli, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta,
GA 30303, 404/562-8190
Cathy Freeman, Region 5, U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management
Division, 7-J Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604 312/886-6214
Bart Canellas, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6H-
MA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-6740
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City,
KS 66101, 913/551-7224
Pat Smith, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver,
CO 80202-2466, 303/312-6082
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 HW-114, 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 and 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 6 sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section. The following table presents the sites in this rule
arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group
number. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA............... Del Amo................. Los Angeles....... 22
MD............... Central Chemical........ Hagerstown........ 5/6
[[Page 50445]]
MD............... Ordnance Products, Inc.. Cecil County...... 21
NJ............... Grand Street Mercury.... Hoboken........... NA
TX............... Sprague Road Ground Odessa............ 10
Water Plume.
WA............... Oeser Co................ Bellingham........ 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 6
Status of NPL
With the new sites added in today's rule, the NPL now contains
1,204 sites, 1,053 in the General Superfund Section and 151 in the
Federal Facilities Section. With a proposed NPL rule published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register,there are now 52 sites proposed
and awaiting final agency action, 46 in the General Superfund Section
and 6 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now
total 1,256.
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, 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--September 1997.''
IV. Regulatory Issues
A. 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.
B. Unfunded Mandates
What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.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
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. When a written statement is needed for an EPA rule, 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, giving
them meaningful and timely opportunity to participate in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising them
on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule
No, today's rule contains no Federal mandates (within the meaning
of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This is
because today's listing decision does not impose any enforceable duties
upon any of these governmental entities or the private sector.
Inclusion of a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. It
does not establish that EPA necessarily will undertake response action,
nor does it require any action by a private 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. Therefore, today's
rulemaking is not subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203 or
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act.
C. 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 sites to the NPL does not in itself require any
action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party
for the cost of cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable groups
are affected. As a 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.
[[Page 50446]]
EPA considers many factors when determining enforcement actions,
including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but also its
ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small governments
and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a similar case-by-
case basis.
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis.
Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting
Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
V. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change
Provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or section 305
of CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
Under 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 under any other Act and any relevant Executive Orders.
Section 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective
date of major rules after this report is submitted. Section 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(4) provides that all other rules shall take effect after
submission to Congress, as otherwise provided by law.
EPA has submitted a report under the APA 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 5 U.S.C. 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.
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 5 U.S.C. 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 the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act calls the effective date of this regulation
into question, EPA will publish a notice of clarification in the
Federal Register.
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: September 12, 1997.
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. In appendix B to part 300, table 1 is amended by adding the
following sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List
Table 1.--General Superfund Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county Notes (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
CA.............. Del Amo................ Los Angeles......
* * * *
* * *
MD.............. Central Chemical....... Hagerstown.......
* * * *
* * *
MD.............. Ordnance Products, Inc. Cecil County.....
[[Page 50447]]
* * * *
* * *
NJ.............. Grand Street Mercury... Hoboken.......... A
* * * *
* * *
TX.............. Sprague Road Ground Odessa...........
Water Plume.
* * * *
* * *
WA.............. Oeser Co............... Bellingham.......
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be 28.50).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-25095 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
