National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites

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 6 new sites to the NPL, all to the General Superfund

Section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall

be April 6, 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

Name Change

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

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

[[Page 11333]]

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

September 25, 1997 (62 FR 50442).

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 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:

[[Page 11334]]

(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 162 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 March

1998, EPA has deleted portions of 9 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 155 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 353 sites are also on the NPL CCL. Thus, as of March 1998,

the CCL consists of 508 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

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

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

Pat Smith, Region 8, U.S. EPA, 999 18th Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO

80202-2466, 303/312-6082

Carolyn Douglas, Region 9, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, 415/744-2343

David Bennett, Region 10, U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail

Stop 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 6 sites to the NPL, all to the General

Superfund Section. The following table presents the sites in this rule

arranged alphabetically by State and identifies their rank by group

number. Group numbers are determined by arranging the NPL by rank and

dividing it into groups of 50 sites. For example, a site in Group 4 has

an HRS score that falls within the range of scores covered by the

fourth group of 50 sites on the NPL.

[[Page 11335]]

Table 1.--National Priorities List Final Rule, General Superfund Section

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

State Site name City/county Group

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 6.

Status of NPL

With the new sites added in today's rule, the NPL now contains

1,197 sites, 1,046 in the General Superfund Section and 151 in the

Federal Facilities Section. With a proposed NPL rule published

elsewhere in today's Federal Register, there are now 54 sites proposed

and awaiting final agency action, 46 in the General Superfund Section

and 8 in the Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now

total 1,251.

Name Change

EPA is changing the name of the Northwest Pipe & Casing Co. site in

Clackamas, Oregon, to Northwest Pipe & Casing/Hall Process Company. EPA

believes this new name more accurately reflects the site.

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 62 FR

15594, April 1, 1997 and 62 FR 50450, September 25, 1997), 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-- March 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), 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 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

[[Page 11336]]

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,

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), Public Law 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

[[Page 11337]]

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: February 26, 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. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by revising the

site name ``Northwest Pipe & Casing Co'' under Clackamas, Oregon to

read ``Northwest Pipe & Casing/Hall Process Company'' and by adding

sites in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix B to Part 300--National Priorities List

Table 1.--General Superfund Section

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

State Site name City/County Notes(a)

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

* * * * * *

FL...................... Florida Petroleum Reprocessors. Fort Lauderdale.

* * * * * *

*

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

* * * * * *

*

NJ...................... Puchack Well Field............. Pennsauken Township.

* * * * * *

*

NJ...................... Zschiegner Refining............ Howell Township.

* * * * * *

*

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

* * * * * *

*

NY...................... Peter Cooper................... Gowanda.

* * * * * *

*

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

(a) A=Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be

28.50).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-5725 Filed 3-5-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P