15594 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5805–3]

National Priorities List for Uncontrolled

Hazardous Waste Sites, Proposed Rule

No. 22

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.

This rule proposes to add 6 new sites

to the NPL, 5 to the General Superfund

Section and 1 to the Federal Facilities

section. This rule also withdraws one

site from proposal to the NPL. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted

(postmarked) on or before June 2, 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;

703/603–8917.

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. E-mailed 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 I 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, or the

Superfund Hotline, Phone (800) 424–

9346 or (703) 412–9810 in the

Washington, DC, metropolitan area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

III. Executive Order 12866

IV. Unfunded Mandates

V. Effect on Small Businesses

I. Introduction

Background

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 hazardous waste sites.

CERCLA was amended on October 17,

1986, by the Superfund Amendments

and Reauthorization Act (‘‘SARA’’),

Public Law No. 99–499, 100, Stat. 1613

et seq. 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 forth the

guidelines and procedures needed to

respond under CERCLA to releases and

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants.

EPA has revised the NCP on several

occasions. The most recent

comprehensive revision was on March

8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA

requires that the NCP include ‘‘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).

‘‘Remedial actions’’ are those

‘‘consistent with permanent remedy,

taken instead of or in addition to

removal actions * * *.’’ 42 U.S.C.

9601(24).

Pursuant to section 105(a)(8)(B) of

CERCLA, as amended by SARA, EPA

has promulgated a list of national

priorities among the known or

threatened releases of hazardous

substances, pollutants, or contaminants

throughout the United States. That list,

which is Appendix B of 40 CFR Part

300, is the National Priorities List

(‘‘NPL’’).

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) defines

the NPL as a list of ‘‘releases’’ and as a

list of the highest priority ‘‘facilities.’’

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) also

requires that the NPL be revised at least

annually. 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). 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. Further,

the NPL is only of limited significance,

as it does not assign liability to any

party or to the owner of any specific

property. 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).

Three mechanisms for placing sites on

the NPL for possible remedial action are

included in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(c). Under 40 CFR 300.425(c)(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 40 CFR

Part 300. 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. 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. As a matter

of Agency policy, those sites that score

28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible

for the NPL.

Under a second mechanism for

adding sites to the NPL, each State may

designate a single site as its top priority,

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)).

The third mechanism for listing,

included in the NCP at 40 CFR
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15595

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 costeffective 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 December

23, 1996 (61 FR 67656).

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.

Site Boundaries

The NPL does not describe releases in

precise geographical terms; it would be

neither feasible nor consistent with the

limited purpose of the NPL (as the mere

identification of releases), for it to do so.

CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B)

mandates listing of national priorities

among the known ‘‘releases or

threatened releases.’’ The purpose of the

NPL is merely to identify releases that

are priorities for further evaluation.

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 upon which the

NPL placement was based will, to some

extent, describe which release is at

issue. That is, the NPL site would

include all releases evaluated as part of

that HRS analysis.

When a site is listed, it is necessary

to define the release (or releases)

encompassed by the listing. 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.

Deletions/Cleanups

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.

To date, the Agency has deleted 139

sites from the NPL.

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 March 1997, EPA has

partially deleted 4 sites.

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).

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.
15596 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Inclusion of a site on the CCL Has No

Legal Significance

In addition to the 132 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 291 sites are

also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of March

1997, the CCL consists of 423 sites.

Public Comment Period

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 and in

the appropriate Regional offices. The

dockets are available for viewing, by

appointment only, after the appearance

of this 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.

Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S.

EPA CERCLA Docket Office, Crystal

Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson

Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202,

703/603–8917

(Please note this is a visiting address

only. Mail comments to address listed

in ADDRESSES section above.)

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 6H1MA,

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 18, U.S. EPA, 999

l8th 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

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.

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. Interested

parties may view documents, by

appointment only, in the Headquarters

or the appropriate Regional docket or

copies may be requested 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.

EPA considers all comments received

during the comment period. 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. Comments that include

complex or voluminous reports, or

materials prepared for purposes other

than HRS scoring, should point out the

specific information that EPA should

consider and how it affects individual

HRS factor values. See 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.

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.

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.

II. Contents of This Proposed Rule

Table 1 identifies the 5 sites in the

General Superfund section being

proposed to the NPL in this rule. Table

2 identifies the 1 site in the Federal

Facility section being proposed to the

NPL in this rule. These tables follow

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 a score that

falls within the range of scores covered

by the fourth group of 50 sites on the

NPL.

Withdrawal of Annie Creek Mine

Tailings

EPA is hereby withdrawing the

proposal of Annie Creek Mine Tailings,

located in Lead, South Dakota. This

withdrawal was proposed on December

23, 1996 (61 FR 67656). EPA received

no comments regarding the proposal to

withdraw this site.

These actions along with a final rule

published elsewhere in today’s Federal

Register, results in an NPL of 1,206

sites, 1,055 in the General Superfund

Section and 151 in the Federal Facilities

Section. With this proposal of 6 new

sites, there are now 49 sites proposed

and awaiting final agency action, 43 in

the General Superfund Section and 6 in

the Federal Facilities Section. Final and

proposed sites now total 1,255.

III. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15597

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

IV. Unfunded Mandates

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures 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 of 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.

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.

V. Effect on Small Businesses

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.

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

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.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #22, GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Group

FL ................ Florida Petroleum Reprocessors ................................................................... Fort Lauderdale ................................. 5/6

GA ............... Terry Creek Dredge Spoil Areas/Hercules Outfall ........................................ Brunswick .......................................... 5

IL ................. DePue/New Jersey Zinc/Mobil Chemical Corp ............................................. Village of DePue ................................ 1

PA ............... Salford Quarry ................................................................................................ Lower Salford Township .................... 5/6

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

Number of Sites Proposed to General Superfund Section: 5.

NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST PROPOSED RULE #22, FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION

State Site name City/county Group

MD ............... Fort George G. Meade .................................................................................. Odenton ............................................. 4

Number of Sites Proposed to Federal Facilities Section: 1.

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.
15598 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 62 / Tuesday, April 1, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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: March 25, 1997.

Timothy Fields, Jr.,

Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

[FR Doc. 97–8087 Filed 3–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P