[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 144 (Tuesday, July 28, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40182-40188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20154]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL-6130-9 ]


National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA'' or ``the Act''), as amended, requires 
that the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 
Plan (``NCP'') include a list of national priorities among the known 
releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants throughout the United States. The National Priorities List 
(``NPL'') constitutes this list. The NPL is intended primarily to guide 
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``the Agency'') in 
determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the 
nature and extent of public health and environmental risks associated 
with the site and to determine what CERCLA-financed remedial action(s), 
if any, may be appropriate.
    This rule adds 9 new sites to the NPL, 7 to the General Superfund 
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall 
be August 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: For addresses for the Headquarters and Regional dockets, as 
well as further details on what these dockets contain, see Section II, 
``Availability of Information to the Public'' in the ``Supplementary 
Information'' portion of this preamble.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Terry Keidan, phone (703) 603-8852, 
State and Site Identification Center, Office of Emergency and Remedial 
Response (mail code 5204G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 
Street, SW, Washington, DC, 20460, or the Superfund Hotline, phone 
(800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the Washington, DC, metropolitan 
area.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Contents

I. Background
    What are CERCLA and SARA?
    What is the NCP?
    What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
    How are Sites Listed on the NPL?
    What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
    How are Site Boundaries defined?
    How are Sites Removed From the NPL?
    Can Portions of Sites be Deleted From the NPL as They are 
Cleaned up?
    What is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
    Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
    What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters 
Docket?
    What Documents are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets?
    How do I Access the Documents?
    How can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
    Additions to the NPL
    Status of NPL
    Withdrawal of 3 Sites From Proposal to the NPL
    What did EPA do With the Public Comments it Received?
IV. Executive Order 12866
    What is Executive Order 12866?
    Is this final rule subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
V. Unfunded Mandates
    What is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
    Does UMRA apply to this final rule?
VI. Effects on Small Businesses
    What is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
    Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act apply to this final rule?
VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
    Has this rule been submitted to Congress and the General 
Accounting Office?
    Could the effective date of this final rule change?
    What could cause the effective date of this rule to change?
VIII. National Technology and Advancement Act
    What is the National Technology and Advancement Act?
    Does the National Technology and Advancement Act apply to this 
final rule?
IX. Executive Order 13045
    What is Executive Order 13045?
    Does Executive Order 13045 apply to this final rule?
X. Paperwork Reduction Act
    What is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
    Does the Paperwork Reduction Act apply to this final rule?
XI. Executive Order 12875
    What is Executive Order 12875 and is it applicable to this final 
rule?

I. Background

What are CERCLA and SARA?

    In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675 (``CERCLA'' or 
``the Act''), in response to the dangers of uncontrolled releases of 
hazardous substances. CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the 
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (``SARA''), Public Law 99-
499, 100 Stat. 1613 et seq.

What is the NCP?

    To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil and 
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (``NCP''), 40 CFR Part 
300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), pursuant to CERCLA section 105 and 
Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP sets 
guidelines and procedures for responding to releases and threatened 
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants under

[[Page 40183]]

CERCLA. EPA has revised the NCP on several occasions. The most recent 
comprehensive revision was on March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666).
    As required under Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, the NCP also 
includes ``criteria for determining priorities among releases or 
threatened releases throughout the United States for the purpose of 
taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, taking into 
account the potential urgency of such action for the purpose of taking 
removal action.'' (``Removal'' actions are defined broadly and include 
a wide range of actions taken to study, clean up, prevent or otherwise 
address releases and threatened releases 42 U.S.C. 9601(23).)

What is the National Priorities List (NPL)?

    The NPL is a list of national priorities among the known or 
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 
contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix 
B of the NCP (40 CFR part 300), was required under section 105(a)(8)(B) 
of CERCLA, as amended by SARA. Section 105(a)(8)(B) defines the NPL as 
a list of ``releases'' and the highest priority ``facilities'' and 
requires that the NPL be revised at least annually. The NPL is intended 
primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further 
investigation to assess the nature and extent of public health and 
environmental risks associated with a release of hazardous substances. 
However, the NPL is only of limited significance, as it does not assign 
liability to any party or to the owner of any specific property. 
Neither does placing a site on the NPL mean that any remedial or 
removal action necessarily need be taken.
    The NPL includes two sections, one of sites that are evaluated and 
cleaned up by EPA (the ``General Superfund Section''), and one of sites 
being addressed generally by other Federal agencies (the ``Federal 
Facilities Section''). Under Executive Order 12580 (52 FR 2923, January 
29, 1987) and CERCLA section 120, each Federal agency is responsible 
for carrying out most response actions at facilities under its own 
jurisdiction, custody, or control, although EPA is responsible for 
preparing an HRS score and determining whether the facility is placed 
on the NPL. EPA generally is not the lead agency at Federal Facilities 
Section sites, and its role at such sites is accordingly less extensive 
than at other sites.

How are Sites Listed on the NPL?

    There are three mechanisms for placing sites on the NPL for 
possible remedial action (see 40 CFR 300.425(c) of the NCP):
    (1) A site may be included on the NPL if it scores sufficiently 
high on the Hazard Ranking System (``HRS''), which EPA promulgated as 
Appendix A of the NCP (40 CFR part 300). The HRS serves as a screening 
device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous 
substances to pose a threat to human health or the environment. On 
December 14, 1990 (55 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS 
partly in response to CERCLA section 105(c), added by SARA. The revised 
HRS evaluates four pathways: ground water, surface water, soil 
exposure, and air. As a matter of Agency policy, those sites that score 
28.50 or greater on the HRS are eligible for the NPL.
    (2) Each State may designate a single site as its top priority to 
be listed on the NPL, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism, 
provided by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2) requires that, to the 
extent practicable, the NPL include within the 100 highest priorities, 
one facility designated by each State representing the greatest danger 
to public health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in 
the State (see 42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B)).
    (3) The third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed regardless of their 
HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
    <bullet> 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.
    <bullet> EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat 
to public health.
    EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its 
remedial authority than to use its removal authority to respond to the 
release.
    EPA promulgated an original NPL of 406 sites on September 8, 1983 
(48 FR 40658). The NPL has been expanded since then, most recently on 
March 6, 1998 (63 FR 11331).

What Happens to Sites on the NPL?

    A site may undergo remedial action financed by the Trust Fund 
established under CERCLA (commonly referred to as the ``Superfund'') 
only after it is placed on the NPL, as provided in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(b)(1). (``Remedial actions'' are those ``consistent with 
permanent remedy, taken instead of or in addition to removal actions * 
* *. '' 42 U.S.C. 9601(24).) However, under 40 CFR 300.425(b)(2) 
placing a site on the NPL ``does not imply that monies will be 
expended.'' EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to respond to 
the releases, including enforcement action under CERCLA and other laws.

How are Site Boundaries Defined?

    The NPL does not describe releases in precise geographical terms; 
it would be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of 
the NPL (to identify releases that are priorities for further 
evaluation), for it to do so.
    Although a CERCLA ``facility'' is broadly defined to include any 
area where a hazardous substance release has ``come to be located'' 
(CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to 
define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of 
course, HRS data (if the HRS is used to list a site) upon which the NPL 
placement was based will, to some extent, describe the release(s) at 
issue. That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as 
part of that HRS analysis.
    When a site is listed, the approach generally used to describe the 
relevant release(s) is to delineate a geographical area (usually the 
area within an installation or plant boundaries) and identify the site 
by reference to that area. As a legal matter, the site is not 
coextensive with that area, and the boundaries of the installation or 
plant are not the ``boundaries'' of the site. Rather, the site consists 
of all contaminated areas within the area used to identify the site, as 
well as any other location to which that contamination has come to be 
located, or from which that contamination came.
    In other words, while geographic terms are often used to designate 
the site (e.g., the ``Jones Co. plant site'') in terms of the property 
owned by a particular party, the site properly understood is not 
limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due 
to contaminant migration), and conversely may not occupy the full 
extent of the property (e.g., where there are uncontaminated parts of 
the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part of 
the ``site''). The ``site'' is thus neither equal to nor confined by 
the boundaries of any specific property that may give the site its 
name, and the name itself should not be read to imply that this site is 
coextensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the 
installation or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are 
typically not known at the time of

[[Page 40184]]

listing. Also, the site name is merely used to help identify the 
geographic location of the contamination. For example, the ``Jones Co. 
plant site,'' does not imply that the Jones company is responsible for 
the contamination located on the plant site.
    EPA regulations provide that the ``nature and extent of the threat 
presented by a release'' will be determined by a remedial 
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) as more information is 
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)). During the RI/FS 
process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was 
originally thought, as more is learned about the source(s) and the 
migration of the contamination. However, this inquiry focuses on an 
evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the release need not 
be exactly defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover 
the full extent of where the contamination ``has come to be located'' 
before all necessary studies and remedial work are completed at a site. 
Indeed, the known boundaries of the contamination can be expected to 
change over time. Thus, in most cases, it may be impossible to describe 
the boundaries of a release with absolute certainty.
    Further, as noted above, NPL listing does not assign liability to 
any party or to the owner of any specific property. Thus, if a party 
does not believe it is liable for releases on discrete parcels of 
property, supporting information can be submitted to the Agency at any 
time after a party receives notice it is a potentially responsible 
party.
    For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended as further research 
reveals more information about the location of the contamination or 
release.

How are Sites Removed From the NPL?

    EPA may delete sites from the NPL where no further response is 
appropriate under Superfund, as explained in the NCP at 40 CFR 
300.425(e). This section also provides that EPA shall consult with 
states on proposed deletions and shall consider whether any of the 
following criteria have been met:
    (i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all 
appropriate response actions required;
    (ii) All appropriate Superfund-financed response has been 
implemented and no further response action is required; or
    (iii) The remedial investigation has shown the release poses no 
significant threat to public health or the environment, and taking of 
remedial measures is not appropriate.
    To date, the Agency has deleted 175 sites from the NPL.

Can Portions of Sites be Deleted From the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?

    In November 1995, EPA initiated a new policy to delete portions of 
NPL sites where cleanup is complete (60 FR 55465, November 1, 1995). 
Total site cleanup may take many years, while portions of the site may 
have been cleaned up and available for productive use. As of July 1998, 
EPA has deleted portions of 11 sites.

What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?

    EPA also has developed an NPL construction completion list 
(``CCL'') to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better 
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities (58 FR 
12142, March 2, 1993). Inclusion of a site on the CCL has no legal 
significance.
    Sites qualify for the CCL when:
    (1) Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not 
final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved;
    (2) EPA has determined that the response action should be limited 
to measures that do not involve construction (e.g., institutional 
controls); or
    (3) The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL.
    In addition to the 166 sites that have been deleted from the NPL 
because they have been cleaned up (9 sites have been deleted based on 
deferral to other authorities and are not considered cleaned up), an 
additional 350 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of July 1998, 
the CCL consists of 516 sites.

II. Availability of Information to the Public

Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?

    Yes, the documents relating to the evaluation and scoring of the 
sites in this final rule are contained in dockets located both at EPA 
Headquarters and in the appropriate Regional offices.

What Documents are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket?

    The Headquarters docket for this rule contains HRS score sheets for 
all of the sites that were added to the NPL based on HRS scores, 
Documentation Records for those sites describing the information used 
to compute the scores, pertinent information regarding statutory 
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect those sites, and a 
list of documents referenced in each of the Documentation Records. The 
Headquarters docket also contains comments received, and the Agency's 
responses to those comments. The Agency's responses are contained in 
the ``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final 
Rule--March 1998.''
    A general discussion of the statutory requirements affecting NPL 
listing, the purpose and implementation of the NPL, the economic 
impacts of NPL listing, and the analysis required under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act is included as part of the Headquarters rulemaking 
docket in the ``Additional Information'' document.

What Documents are Available for Review at the Regional Dockets?

    The Regional dockets contain all the information in the 
Headquarters docket, plus the actual reference documents containing the 
data principally relied upon by EPA in calculating or evaluating the 
HRS scores for the sites. These reference documents are available only 
in the Regional dockets.

How Do I Access the Documents?

    You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the 
publication of this notice. The hours of operation for the Headquarters 
docket are from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional Docket for 
hours.
    You may also request copies from the Headquarters or appropriate 
Regional docket. An informal request, rather than a formal written 
request under the Freedom of Information Act, should be the ordinary 
procedure for obtaining copies of any of these documents.
    Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters and 
Regional dockets:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters, U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket Office, 
Crystal Gateway #1, 1st Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, 
VA, 703/603-8917
Jim Kyed, Region 1, U.S. EPA Waste Management Records Center, HRC-CAN-
7, J.F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston, MA 02203-2211, 617/573-9656
Ben Conetta, Region 2, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, 
212/637-4435
Dawn Shellenberger, Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA 
Library, 3rd Floor,, 841 Chestnut Building, 9th & Chestnut Streets, 
Philadelphia, PA 19107, Mail Code 3PM52, 215/566-5364


[[Page 40185]]


(After July 30 contact: Kevin Wood, U.S. EPA Region 3, 1650 Arch 
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Mail Code: 3HS33, 215/814-3303)
Sherryl Decker, Region 4, U.S. EPA, 100 Alabama Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 
30303, 404/562-8127

Region 5

U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste Management Division 7-J, Metcalfe 
Federal Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 
886-7570
Brenda Cook, Region 6, U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Mail Code 6SF-RA, 
Dallas, TX 75202-2733, 214/655-7436
Carole Long, Region 7, U.S. EPA, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 
66101, 913/551-7224
David Williams, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, 
CO 80202-2466, 303/312-6757
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343
David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail 
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101, 206/553-2103

How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?

    You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the internet at 
WWW.EPA.GOV/SUPERFUND (look under site information category) or by 
contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).

III. Contents of This Final Rule

Additions to the NPL

    This final rule adds 9 sites to the NPL, 7 to the General Superfund 
Section and 2 to the Federal Facilities Section. The following tables 
present the sites in this rule arranged alphabetically by State and 
identifies their rank by group number. Table 1 contains the 7 sites in 
the General Superfund Section and Table 2 contains the 2 sites in the 
Federal Facilities Section. Group numbers are determined by arranging 
the NPL by rank and dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a 
site in Group 4 has an HRS score that falls within the range of scores 
covered by the fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

                    Table 1.--National Priorities List Final Rule, General Superfund Section                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                   Site name                             City/county                       Group   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL                    Solitron Microwave..........  Port Salerno...................................          5/6
GA                    Camilla Wood Preserving       Camilla........................................          5/6
                       Company.                                                                                 
NJ                    Cornell Dubilier Electronics  South Plainfield...............................            5
                       Inc.                                                                                     
NJ                    LCP Chemicals Inc...........  Linden.........................................          5/6
PA                    Sharon Steel Corp. (Farrell   Hickory Township...............................          5/6
                       Wks Disp Area).                                                                          
TX                    Jasper Creosoting Company     Jasper.........................................          5/6
                       Inc.                                                                                     
TX                    State Marine of Port Arthur.  Port Arthur....................................            7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 7.

                    Table 2.--National Priorities List Final Rule, Federal Facilites Section                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                   Site name                             City/county                       Group   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC                    Washington Navy Yard........  Washington DC..................................          5/6
MD                    Fort George G. Mead.........  Odenton........................................            4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of Sites Added to the Federal Facilities Section: 2.

Status of NPL

    With the new sites added in today's rule, the NPL now contains 
1,193 sites, 1,040 in the General Superfund Section and 153 in the 
Federal Facilities Section. With a proposed NPL rule published 
elsewhere in today's Federal Register, there are now 56 sites proposed 
and awaiting final agency action, 47 in the General Superfund Section 
and 9 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now 
total 1,249.

Withdrawal of 3 Sites from Proposal to the NPL

    EPA is withdrawing the following three sites from proposal to the 
NPL: Cross County Sanitation Landfill in Patterson, New York; Lincoln 
Creosote in Bossier City, Louisiana; and Monarch Tile Manufacturing, 
Inc. in Florence, Alabama.

What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?

    EPA reviewed all comments received on sites included in this rule. 
Based on comments received on the proposed sites (published at 61 FR 
30575, June 17, 1996, 62 FR 15594, April 1, 1997, 62 FR 50450, 
September 25, 1997, and 63 FR11339, March 6, 1998), as well as 
investigation by EPA and the States (generally in response to comment), 
EPA recalculated the HRS scores for individual sites where appropriate. 
EPA's response to site-specific public comments and explanations of any 
score changes made as a result of such comments are addressed in the 
``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final 
Rule-- July 1998.''

IV. Executive Order 12866

What Is Executive Order 12866?

    Executive Order 12866 requires certain regulatory assessments for 
any ``economically significant regulatory action,'' defined as one 
which would result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more, or have other substantial impacts.

Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?

    No, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

V. Unfunded Mandates

What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.L. 
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

[[Page 40186]]

analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one year. Before EPA promulgates a rule for which a written statement 
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt 
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, 
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least 
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the 
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that 
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory 
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under 
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must 
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling 
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely 
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant 
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and 
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory 
requirements.

Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?

    No, EPA has determined that this rule does not include a Federal 
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to 
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. This rule 
will not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate because it 
imposes no enforceable duty upon State, tribal or local governments. 
Listing a site on the NPL does not itself impose any costs. Listing 
does not mean that EPA necessarily will undertake remedial action. Nor 
does listing require any action by a private party or determine 
liability for response costs. Costs that arise out of site responses 
result from site-specific decisions regarding what actions to take, not 
directly from the act of listing a site on the NPL.
    For the same reasons, EPA also has determined that this rule 
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. In addition, as discussed above, the 
private sector is not expected to incur costs exceeding $100 million. 
EPA has fulfilled the requirement for analysis under the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act.

VI. Effect on Small Businesses

What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires EPA to review the 
impacts of this action on small entities, or certify that the action 
will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. By small entities, the Act refers to small businesses, small 
government jurisdictions, and nonprofit organizations.

Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act Apply to This Final Rule?

    While this rule revises the NPL, an NPL revision is not a typical 
regulatory change since it does not automatically impose costs. As 
stated above, adding a site to the NPL does not in itself require any 
action by any party, nor does it determine the liability of any party 
for the cost of any cleanup at the site. Further, no identifiable 
groups are affected. As a consequence, impacts on any group are hard to 
predict. A site's inclusion on the NPL could increase the likelihood of 
adverse impacts on responsible parties (in the form of cleanup costs), 
but at this time EPA cannot identify the potentially affected 
businesses or estimate the number of small businesses that might also 
be affected.
    The Agency does expect that placing the sites in this rule on the 
NPL could significantly affect certain industries, or firms within 
industries, that have caused a proportionately high percentage of waste 
site problems. However, EPA does not expect the listing of these sites 
to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
businesses.
    In any case, economic impacts would occur only through enforcement 
and cost-recovery actions, which EPA takes at its discretion on a site-
by-site basis. EPA considers many factors when deciding on enforcement 
actions, including not only a firm's contribution to the problem, but 
also its ability to pay. The impacts (from cost recovery) on small 
governments and nonprofit organizations would be determined on a 
similar case-by-case basis.
    For the foregoing reasons, I hereby certify that this rule will not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Therefore, this regulation does not require a regulatory 
flexibility analysis.

VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule

Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting 
Office?

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as enacted by 
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 
generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is 
not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?

    Provisions of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) or section 305 of 
CERCLA may alter the effective date of this regulation.
    Under the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a), before a rule can take effect the 
federal agency promulgating the rule must submit a report to each House 
of the Congress and to the Comptroller General. This report must 
contain a copy of the rule, a concise general statement relating to the 
rule (including whether it is a major rule), a copy of the cost-benefit 
analysis of the rule (if any), the agency's actions relevant to 
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (affecting small 
businesses) and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (describing 
unfunded federal requirements imposed on state and local governments 
and the private sector), and any other relevant information or 
requirements and any relevant Executive Orders.
    EPA has submitted a report under the CRA for this rule. The rule 
will take effect, as provided by law, within 30 days of publication of 
this notice, since it is not a major rule. Section 804(2) defines a 
major rule as any rule that the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) finds has resulted in or is likely to result in: an 
annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase 
in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, 
State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; or 
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,

[[Page 40187]]

productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based 
enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and 
export markets. NPL listing is not a major rule because, as explained 
above, the listing, itself, imposes no monetary costs on any person. It 
establishes no enforceable duties, does not establish that EPA 
necessarily will undertake remedial action, nor does it require any 
action by any party or determine its liability for site response costs. 
Costs that arise out of site responses result from site-by-site 
decisions about what actions to take, not directly from the act of 
listing itself. Section 801(a)(3) provides for a delay in the effective 
date of major rules after this report is submitted.

What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule To Change?

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(1) a rule shall not take effect, or continue 
in effect, if Congress enacts (and the President signs) a joint 
resolution of disapproval, described under section 802.
    Another statutory provision that may affect this rule is CERCLA 
section 305, which provides for a legislative veto of regulations 
promulgated under CERCLA. Although INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919,103 S. 
Ct. 2764 (1983) and Bd. of Regents of the University of Washington v. 
EPA, 86 F.3d 1214,1222 (D.C. Cir. 1996) cast the validity of the 
legislative veto into question, EPA has transmitted a copy of this 
regulation to the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of 
Representatives.
    If action by Congress under either the CRA or CERCLA section 305 
calls the effective date of this regulation into question, EPA will 
publish a document of clarification in the Federal Register.

VIII. National Technology and Advancement Act

What Is the National Technology and Advancement Act?

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology and Advancement Act of 
1995 (NTTAA), Pub. L. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices, etc.) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA requires EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

Does the National Technology and Advancement Act Apply to This Final 
Rule?

    EPA is not using any new test methods or other technical standards 
as part of today's rule, which adds sites to the NPL. Thus, the Agency 
does not need to consider the use of voluntary consensus standards in 
developing this final rule. EPA invites public comment on this 
analysis.

IX. Executive Order 13045

What Is Executive Order 13045?

    On April 21, 1997, the President issued Executive Order 13045 
entitled Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and 
Safety Risks (62 FR 19883). Under section 5 of the Order, a federal 
agency submitting a ``covered regulatory action ``to OMB for review 
under Executive Order 12866 must provide information regarding the 
environmental health or safety affects of the planned regulation on 
children. A ``covered regulatory action'' is defined in section 2-202 
as a substantive action in a rulemaking, initiated after the date of 
this order or for which a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is published 1 
year after the date of this order, that is likely to result in a rule 
that may be ``economically significant'' under Executive Order 12866 
and concern an environmental health risk or safety risk that an agency 
has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children.

Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?

    This final rule is not a ``covered regulatory action'' as defined 
in the Order and accordingly is not subject to section 5 of the Order. 
As discussed above this final rule does not constitute economically 
significant action (i.e., it is not expected to have an annual adverse 
impact of $100 million or more) under Executive Order 12866. Further, 
this rule does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk 
that disproportionately affects children.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?

    According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB 
approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations, after initial display in the preamble of the final rules, 
are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The information collection requirements 
related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to 
the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574).

Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?

    This action does not impose any burden requiring OMB approval under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act.

XI. Executive Order 12875

What Is Executive Order 12875 and Is It Applicable to This Final Rule?

    Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership.--This final rule does 
not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate that 
would require any prior consultation with State, local or tribal 
officials under Executive Order 12875.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals, 
Hazardous materials, Intergovernmental relations, Natural resources, 
Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 
Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 20, 1998.
Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 
Response.
    40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    2. Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix B to Part 300 are amended by adding 
sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

[[Page 40188]]



                                       Table 1.--General Superfund Section                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                  Site name                          City/county                       Notes(a)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
FL...................  Solitron Microwave......  Port Salerno................................                   
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
GA...................  Camilla Wood Preserving   Camilla.....................................                   
                        Company.                                                                                
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
NJ...................  Cornell Dubilier          South Plainfield............................                   
                        Electronics Inc.                                                                        
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
NJ...................  LCP Chemicals Inc.......  Linden......................................                   
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
PA...................  Sharon Steel Corp.        Hickory Township............................                   
                        (Farrell Wks Disp Area).                                                                
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
TX...................  Jasper Creosoting         Jasper County...............................                   
                        Company Inc.                                                                            
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
TX...................  State Marine of Port      Jefferson County............................                   
                        Arthur.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                  Site name                          City/county                       Notes(a)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
DC...................  Washington Navy Yard....  Washington DC...............................                   
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
MD...................  Fort George G. Meade....  Odenton.....................................                   
                                                                                                                
*                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                
                                                        *                                                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-20154 Filed 7-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P