50450 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5895–7]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 23

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed 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 proposes to add 9 new sites

to the NPL, all to the General Superfund

Section.

DATES: Comments regarding any of these

proposed listings must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before November 24,

1997.

ADDRESSES: By Mail: Mail original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office; (Mail Code 5201G); 401

M Street, SW; Washington, DC 20460;

703/603–9232.

By Federal Express: Send original and

three copies of comments (no facsimiles

or tapes) to Docket Coordinator,

Headquarters; U.S. EPA; CERCLA

Docket Office; 1235 Jefferson Davis

Highway; Crystal Gateway #1, First

Floor; Arlington, VA 22202.

By E-Mail: Comments in ASCII format

only may be mailed directly to

SUPERFUND.DOCKET@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV. Emailed comments must be followed up

by an original and three copies sent by

mail or Federal Express.

For additional Docket addresses and

further details on their contents, see

Section II, ‘‘Public Review/Public

Comment,’’ of 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. Public Review/Public Comment

Can I review the documents relevant to this

proposed rule?

How do I access the documents?

What documents are available for public

review at the Headquarters docket?

What documents are available for public

review at the Regional dockets?

How do I submit my comments?

What happens to my comments?

Can I submit comments after the public

comment period is over?

Can I view public comments submitted by

others?

Can I submit comments regarding sites not

currently proposed to the NPL?

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

Proposed Additions to the NPL

Status of NPL

IV. Executive Order 12866

What is Executive Order 12866?

Is this proposed rule subject to Executive

Order 12866 review?

V. Unfunded Mandates

What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act (UMRA)?

Does UMRA apply to this proposed rule?

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply

to this proposed 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

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50451

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 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 USC

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, to describe the

relevant release(s) the approach

generally used 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

contamination from that area 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

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
50452 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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.

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. Public Review/Public Comment

Can I Review the Documents Relevant to

This Proposed Rule

Yes, the documents that form the

basis for EPA’s evaluation and scoring

of sites in this rule are contained in

dockets located both at EPA

Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and

in the appropriate Regional offices.

How Do I Access the Documents

You may view the documents, by

appointment only, in the Headquarters

or the appropriate Regional docket after

the appearance of this proposed rule.

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 individual Regional dockets for

hours.

You may also request copies from

EPA Headquarters or the 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 docket (see

‘‘How do I submit my comments?’’

section below for Regional contacts):

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.

EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal

Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202,

703/603–9232. (Please note this is a

visiting address only. Mail comments to

EPA Headquarters as detailed at the

beginning of this preamble, or contact

Regional offices as detailed in the ‘‘How

do I submit my comments?’’ section

below.)

What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Headquarters

Docket

The Headquarters docket for this rule

contains: HRS score sheets for each

proposed site; a Documentation Record

for each site describing the information

used to compute the score; information

for any site affected by particular

statutory requirements or EPA listing

policies; and a list of documents

referenced in the Documentation

Record.

The Headquarters docket also

contains an ‘‘Additional Information’’

document which provides a general

discussion of the statutory requirements

affecting NPL listing, the purpose and

implementation of the NPL, and the

economic impacts of NPL listing.

What Documents Are Available for

Public Review at the Regional Dockets

Each Regional docket for this rule

contains all of the information in the

Headquarters docket for sites in that

Region, plus, the actual reference

documents containing the data

principally relied upon and cited by

EPA in calculating or evaluating the

HRS scores for sites in that Region.

These reference documents are available

only in the Regional dockets.

How Do I Submit My Comments?

Comments must be submitted to EPA

Headquarters as detailed at the

beginning of this preamble. Regional

offices may be reached at the following:

Jim Kyed, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH,

RI, VT), 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 (NJ, NY, PR, VI),

U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York,

NY 10007–1866, 212/637–4435

Diane McCreary, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD,

PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA Library, 3rd

Floor, 841 Chestnut Building, 9th &

Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, PA

19107, 215/566–5250

Kathy Piselli, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY,

MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 100

Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA

30303, 404/562–8190

Cathy Freeman, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI,

MN, OH, WI), 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 (AR, LA, NM,

OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross

Avenue, Mail Code 6H–MA, Dallas,

TX 75202–2733, 214/655–6740

Carole Long, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE),

U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue,

Kansas City, KS 66101, 913/551–7224

Pat Smith, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD,

UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, CO 80202–2466,

303/312–6082

Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI,

NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415/

744–2343

David Bennett, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,

WA), U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th

Avenue, Mail Stop HW–114, Seattle,

WA 98101, 206/553–2103

What Happens to My Comments?

EPA considers all comments received

during the comment period. Comments

that include complex or voluminous

reports, or materials prepared for

purposes other than HRS scoring,

should point out the specific
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules 50453

information that EPA should consider

and how it affects individual HRS factor

values (Northside Sanitary Landfill v.

Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516 (D.C. Cir.

1988)). EPA will make final listing

decisions after considering the relevant

comments received during the comment

period.

Can I Submit Comments After the

Public Comment Period Is Over?

In past rules, EPA has attempted to

respond to late comments, or when that

was not practicable, to read all late

comments and address those that

brought to the Agency’s attention a

fundamental error in the scoring of a

site. Although EPA intends to pursue

the same policy with sites in this rule,

EPA can guarantee that it will consider

only those comments postmarked by the

close of the formal comment period.

EPA has a policy of not delaying a final

listing decision solely to accommodate

consideration of late comments.

Can I View Public Comments Submitted

by Others?

During the comment period,

comments are placed in the

Headquarters docket and are available to

the public on an ‘‘as received’’ basis. A

complete set of comments will be

available for viewing in the Regional

docket approximately one week after the

formal comment period closes.

Comments received after the comment

period closes will be available in the

Headquarters docket and in the Regional

docket on an ‘‘as received’’ basis.

Can I Submit Comments Regarding Sites

Not Currently Proposed to the NPL?

In certain instances, interested parties

have written to EPA concerning sites

which were not at that time proposed to

the NPL. If those sites are later proposed

to the NPL, parties should review their

earlier concerns and, if still appropriate,

resubmit those concerns for

consideration during the formal

comment period. Site-specific

correspondence received prior to the

period of formal proposal and comment

will not generally be included in the

docket.

III. Contents of This Proposed Rule

Proposed Additions to the NPL

Table 1 identifies the 9 sites in the

General Superfund section being

proposed to the NPL in this rule. This

table follows this preamble. All sites are

proposed based on HRS scores of 28.50

or above. The sites in Table 1 and Table

2 are listed alphabetically by State, for

ease of identification, with group

number identified to provide an

indication of relative ranking. To

determine group number, sites on the

NPL are placed in groups of 50; for

example, a site in Group 4 of this

proposal has an HRS score that falls

within the range of scores covered by

the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

Status of NPL

A final rule published elsewhere in

today’s Federal Register, results in an

NPL of 1,204 sites, 1,053 in the General

Superfund Section and 151 in the

Federal Facilities Section. With this

proposal of 9 new sites, 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.

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 Proposed Rule Subject to

Executive Order 12866 Review?

No, this is not an economically

significant regulatory action; therefore,

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

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or to 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 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 Proposed

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 remedial 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 section

202, 203 or 205 of 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 Proposed Rule?

While this rule proposes to revise the

NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical

regulatory change since it does not

automatically impose costs. As stated
50454 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 186 / Thursday, September 25, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 whole. 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 proposed 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

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 proposed rule, if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore, this

proposed regulation does not require a

regulatory flexibility analysis.

TABLE 1.—NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #23, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Group

IN ............. Cam-Or Inc ............................................................................................................ Westville ................................................ 2

MA ........... GE-Housatonic River ............................................................................................. Pittsfield ................................................. 1

NJ ............ Cornell Dubilier Electronics Inc ............................................................................. South Plainfield ..................................... 5

NJ ............ LCP Chemicals Inc ................................................................................................ Linden .................................................... 5/6

NJ ............ Puchack Well Field ................................................................................................ Pennsauken Township .......................... 5/6

NJ ............ Zschiegner Refining ............................................................................................... Howell Township ................................... 5/6

NY ............ Fulton Avenue ........................................................................................................ North Hempstead .................................. 21

NY ............ Peter Cooper ......................................................................................................... Gowanda ............................................... 5/6

TN ............ American Bemberg ................................................................................................ Elizabethton ........................................... 5/6

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 9.

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.

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.

Dated: September 12, 1997.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 97–25094 Filed 9–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P