40182 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1. Telegraph or cable. (If this method is used, a $20 deposit must be collected from the sender and held at post

office of inquiry. The post office will be notified of the

exact cost and any excess must be returned to the sender.).

Cost of telegram .................... Prepay.

2. Registered airmail letter ..................................................... Appropriate registry fee plus

postage.

Prepay.

* * * * *

385.3 Recorded Delivery Fee

The recorded delivery fee is $1.40. It

is an addition to postage and other

special services fees, if applicable.

* * * * *

Chapter 7 Treatment of Inbound Mail

* * * * *

781.5a Return Charges for Postal

Union Mail

The return charge paid by publishers

or registered news agents who originally

mailed publishers’ periodicals to

Canada is now the same as the surface

postage rate for a regular printed matter

item of the same weight mailed from the

United States to Canada. See Individual

Country Listings for fees.

An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR

part 20 will be published.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 98–20164 Filed 7–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

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 CERCLAfinanced 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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:

• 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 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
40184 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

listing. Also, the site name is merely

used to help identify the geographic

location of the contamination. For

example, the ‘‘Jones Co. plant site,’’

does not imply that the Jones company

is responsible for the contamination

located on the plant site.

EPA regulations provide that the

‘‘nature and extent of the threat

presented by a release’’ will be

determined by a remedial investigation/

feasibility study (RI/FS) as more

information is developed on site

contamination (40 CFR 300.430(d)).

During the RI/FS process, the release

may be found to be larger or smaller

than was originally thought, as more is

learned about the source(s) and the

migration of the contamination.

However, this inquiry focuses on an

evaluation of the threat posed; the

boundaries of the release need not be

exactly defined. Moreover, it generally

is impossible to discover the full extent

of where the contamination ‘‘has come

to be located’’ before all necessary

studies and remedial work are

completed at a site. Indeed, the known

boundaries of the contamination can be

expected to change over time. Thus, in

most cases, it may be impossible to

describe the boundaries of a release

with absolute certainty.

Further, as noted above, NPL listing

does not assign liability to any party or

to the owner of any specific property.

Thus, if a party does not believe it is

liable for releases on discrete parcels of

property, supporting information can be

submitted to the Agency at any time

after a party receives notice it is a

potentially responsible party.

For these reasons, the NPL need not

be amended as further research reveals

more information about the location of

the contamination or release.

How are Sites Removed From the NPL?

EPA may delete sites from the NPL

where no further response is

appropriate under Superfund, as

explained in the NCP at 40 CFR

300.425(e). This section also provides

that EPA shall consult with states on

proposed deletions and shall consider

whether any of the following criteria

have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other

persons have implemented all

appropriate response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate Superfundfinanced response has been

implemented and no further response

action is required; or

(iii) The remedial investigation has

shown the release poses no significant

threat to public health or the

environment, and taking of remedial

measures is not appropriate.

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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 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 Company ......................................................................... Camilla ........................................ 5/6

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

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

PA Sharon Steel Corp. (Farrell Wks Disp Area) ............................................................ Hickory Township ........................ 5/6

TX Jasper Creosoting Company Inc ............................................................................... Jasper ......................................... 5/6

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
40186 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

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 costeffective, 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,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 40187

productivity, innovation, or on the

ability of United States-based

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and

export markets. NPL listing is not a

major rule because, as explained above,

the listing, itself, imposes no monetary

costs on any person. It establishes no

enforceable duties, does not establish

that EPA necessarily will undertake

remedial action, nor does it require any

action by any party or determine its

liability for site response costs. Costs

that arise out of site responses result

from site-by-site decisions about what

actions to take, not directly from the act

of listing itself. 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
40188 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 144 /Tuesday, July 28, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION

State Site name City/county Notes(a)

* * * * * * *

FL ................. Solitron Microwave ................................................................................................ Port Salerno.

* * * * * * *

GA ................ Camilla Wood Preserving Company ..................................................................... Camilla.

* * * * * * *

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

* * * * * * *

NJ ................. LCP Chemicals Inc ................................................................................................ Linden.

* * * * * * *

PA ................. Sharon Steel Corp. (Farrell Wks Disp Area) ......................................................... Hickory Township.

* * * * * * *

TX ................. Jasper Creosoting Company Inc ........................................................................... Jasper County.

* * * * * * *

TX ................. State Marine of Port Arthur ................................................................................... Jefferson County.

* * * * * * *

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97–84; RM–9021, RM–9095]

Radio Broadcasting Services; Pauls

Valley, Ratliff City, Sulphur, OK,

Abilene, Bowie, Highland Village,

Mount Pleasant, and Overton, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the

request of Tom Stamper, dismisses his

request to allot Channel 291A to Pauls

Valley, OK, as the community’s second

local FM service. See 62 FR 10010,

March 5, 1997. At the joint request of:

(1) Bowie-Nacona Broadcasting

Company, Inc., Channel 264C is

substituted for Channel 264C3, Channel

264C is reallotted from Bowie to

Highland Village, TX, as the

community’s first local aural service,

and the license of Station KRJT–FM is

modified accordingly; (2) Dynamic

Broadcasting, Inc., Channel 263C is

substituted for Channel 264C at Abilene,

TX, and the license of Station KORQ–

FM is modified to specify the alternate

Class C channel; and (3) East Texas

Broadcasting Company, Inc., Channel

264C2 is substituted for Channel 264C

at Mount Pleasant, TX, Channel 264C2

is reallotted to Overton, TX, as the

community’s first local aural service,

and the license of Station KPXI is

modified accordingly. To accommodate

these changes, Channel 291A is

substituted for Channel 265C3 at

Sulphur, OK, and the license of Station

KFXT is modified to specify the Class A

channel. At the request of Carter County

Broadcasting, the Commission dismisses

its counterproposal to allot Channel

291A to Ratliff City, OK, as the

community’s first local aural service.

With this action, this proceeding is

terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Effective August 31,

1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Report

and Order, MM Docket No. 97–84,

adopted July 15, 1998, and released July

17, 1998. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of

this decision may also be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Services,

Inc., (202) 857–3800, 1231 20th Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20036.

Channel 264C can be allotted to

Highland Village in compliance with

the Commission’s minimum distance

separation requirements with a site

restriction of 57.5 kilometers (35.7