50442 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 CERCLAfinanced 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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 Superfundfinanced 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.
50444 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 50445

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST FINAL RULE, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued

State Site name City/county Group

MD ........... Ordnance Products, Inc ......................................................................................... Cecil County .......................................... 21

NJ ............ Grand Street Mercury ............................................................................................ Hoboken ................................................ NA

TX ............ Sprague Road Ground Water Plume .................................................................... Odessa .................................................. 10

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 sitespecific 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.
50446 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 foreignbased 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 50447

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued

State Site name City/county Notes (a)

* * * * * * *

NJ ............ Grand Street Mercury ............................................................................... Hoboken .......................................... A

* * * * * * *

TX ............ Sprague Road Ground Water Plume ....................................................... Odessa.

* * * * * * *

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