Federal Register:
September 5, 2002
[Federal Register: September 5, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 172)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 56757-56765]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05se02-7]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-7272-1]
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. These further
investigations will allow EPA 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 19 new sites to the NPL; 18 to the General
Superfund Section of the NPL and one to the Federal Facilities Section
of the NPL.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP shall
be October 7, 2002.
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.
[[Page 56758]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yolanda Singer, phone (703) 603-8835,
State, Tribal and Site Identification Center; Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (mail code 5204G); U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460; or the
Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-9346 or (703) 412-9810 in the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. What Are CERCLA and SARA?
B. What Is the NCP?
C. What Is the National Priorities List (NPL)?
D. How Are Sites Listed on the NPL?
E. What Happens to Sites on the NPL?
F. How Are Site Boundaries Defined?
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
H. Can Portions of Sites Be Deleted from the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters
Docket?
C. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Regional
Docket?
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. Status of NPL
C. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Executive Order 12866
A. What Is Executive Order 12866?
B. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
V. Unfunded Mandates
A. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
VI. Effects on Small Businesses
A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
B. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
B. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
C. What Could Cause the Effective Date of This Rule to Change?
VIII. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
IX. Executive Order 12898
A. What Is Executive Order 12898?
B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Final Rule?
X. Executive Order 13045
A. What Is Executive Order 13045?
B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
XII. Executive Orders on Federalism
What Are the Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They
Applicable to This Final Rule?
XIII. Executive Order 13175
A. What Is Executive Order 13175?
B. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
XIV. Executive Order 13211
A. What Is Executive Order 13211?
B. Is this Rule Subject to Excecutive Order 13211.
I. Background
A. 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.
B. 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).)
C. 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.
The NPL is only of limited significance, however, 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.
For purposes of listing, the NPL includes two sections, one of
sites that are generally evaluated and cleaned up by EPA (the ``General
Superfund Section''), and one of sites that are owned or operated by
other Federal agencies (the ``Federal Facilities Section''). With
respect to sites in the Federal Facilities Section, these sites are
generally being addressed by other Federal agencies. 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.
D. 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),
[[Page 56759]]
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:
[sbull] 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.
[sbull] EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat
to public health.
[sbull] 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 13, 2001 (66 FR 47583).
E. 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.
F. 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 name ``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 problem
presented by the release'' will be determined by a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) as more information is
developed on site contamination (40 CFR 300.5). 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.
G. 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.
As of August 20, 2002, the Agency has deleted 259 sites from the NPL.
H. 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 August 20,
2002, EPA has deleted 31 portions of 28 sites.
[[Page 56760]]
I. 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.
As of August 20, 2002, there are a total of 818 sites on the CCL.
For the most up-to-date information on the CCL, see EPA's Internet site
at http://www.epa.gov/superfund.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. Can I Review the Documents Relevant to This Final Rule?
Yes, 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 Regional offices.
B. What Documents Are Available for Review at the Headquarters Docket?
The Headquarters docket for this rule contains, for each site, the
HRS score sheets, the Documentation Record describing the information
used to compute the score, pertinent information regarding statutory
requirements or EPA listing policies that affect the site, and a list
of documents referenced in the Documentation Record. 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--September
2002.''
C. 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 score for the sites located in their Region. These reference
documents are available only in the Regional dockets.
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this document. The hours of operation for the
Headquarters docket are from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Please contact the Regional dockets for
hours.
Following is the contact information for the EPA Headquarters:
Docket Coordinator, Headquarters; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
CERCLA Docket Office; 1301 Constitution Avenue; EPA West, Room B102,
Washington, DC 20004, 202/566-0276.
The contact information for the Regional dockets is as follows:
Ellen Culhane, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston,
MA 02114-2023; 617/918-1225.
Dennis Munhall, Region 2 (NJ, NY, PR, VI), U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, New
York, NY 10007-1866; 212/637-4343.
Dawn Shellenberger (ASRC), Region 3 (DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, WV), U.S. EPA,
Library, 1650 Arch Street, Mailcode 3PM52, Philadelphia, PA 19103; 215/
814-5364.
Lauren Brantley, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA,
61 Forsyth Street, SW, 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; 404/562-8127.
Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records Center, Waste
Management Division 7-J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; 312/886-7570.
Brenda Cook, Region 6 (AR, LA, NM, OK, TX), U.S. EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Mailcode 6SF-RA, Dallas, TX 75202-2733; 214/665-7436.
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; 913/551-7335.
David Williams, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 999 18th
Street, Suite 500, Mailcode 8EPR-SA, Denver, CO 80202-2466; 303/312-
6757.
Carolyn Douglas, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; 415/972-3092.
Robert Phillips, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 11th Floor, 1200
6th Avenue, Mail Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; 206/553-6699.
E. How Can I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under the Superfund sites category)
or by contacting the Superfund Docket (see contact information above).
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
This final rule adds 19 sites to the NPL; 18 to General Superfund
Section of the NPL and one to the Federal Facilities Section. Table 1
presents the 18 sites in the General Superfund Section Table 2 presents
the site in the Federal Facilities Section. Sites in the tables are
arranged alphabetically by State.
Table 1.--National Priorities List Final Rule, General Superfund Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA............................... Del Amo...................................... Los Angeles.
IA............................... Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination.... Des Moines.
MA............................... Hatheway and Patterson Company............... Mansfield.
ME............................... Callahan Mine................................ Brooksville.
MO............................... Oak Grove Village Well....................... Oak Grove Village.
NC............................... Reasor Chemical Company...................... Castle Hayne.
NJ............................... Atlantic Resources Corporation............... Sayreville.
NJ............................... Diamond Head Oil Refinery Div................ Kearny
NJ............................... Quanta Resources............................. Edgewater.
NM............................... McGaffey and Main Groundwater Plume.......... Roswell.
NY............................... Cayuga County Ground Water Contamination..... Cayuga County.
NY............................... Crown Cleaners of Watertown, Inc............. Carthage.
NY............................... Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal.............. Ellenville.
PA............................... Franklin Slag Pile (MDC)..................... Philadelphia.
TX............................... Brine Service Company........................ Corpus Christi.
[[Page 56761]]
TX............................... Patrick Bayou................................ Deer Park.
UT............................... Eureka Mills................................. Eureka.
WI............................... Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront...... Ashland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Added to the General Superfund Section: 18.
Table 2.--National Priorities List Final Rule, Federal Facilities Section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD............................... Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard.................. Anne Arundel County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sites Added to the Federal Facilities Section: 1.
B. Status of NPL
With the 19 new sites added to the NPL in today's final rule; the
NPL now contains 1,239 final sites; 1,080 in the General Superfund
Section and 159 in the Federal Facilities Section. With a separate rule
(published elsewhere in today's Federal Register) proposing to add 7
new sites to the NPL, there are now 62 sites proposed and awaiting
final agency action, 56 in the General Superfund Section and 6 in the
Federal Facilities Section. Final and proposed sites now total 1,301.
(These numbers reflect the status of sites as of August 20, 2002. Site
deletions occurring after this date may affect these number at time of
publication in the Federal Register.)
C. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule. The
Diamond Head Oil Refinery Division site was proposed on July 27, 2000
(65 FR 46131). The Del Amo and Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront
sites were proposed on December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75215). The Quanta
Resources site was proposed on January 11, 2001 (66 FR 2380). The
Patrick Bayou and Eureka Mills sites were proposed June 14, 2001 (66 FR
32287). The remaining sites were proposed on September 13, 2001 (66 FR
47612).
EPA responded to all relevant comments received on the following
sites: Diamond Head Oil Refinery Division, Quanta Resources, Ashland/
Northern States Power Lakefront, Patrick Bayou, Eureka Mills, and Del
Amo. EPA's responses to site-specific public comments are addressed in
the ``Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final
Rule--September 2002.''
For the remaining sites. EPA received no comments or only comments
supporting the listing of the sites to the NPL and therefore, EPA is
placing them on the final NPL at this time.
IV. Executive Order 12866
A. What Is Executive Order 12866?
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
B. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
No. The listing of sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any entities. The listing does not set standards or a regulatory
regime and imposes no liability or costs. Any liability under CERCLA
exists irrespective of whether a site is listed. It has been determined
that this action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to OMB
review.
V. Unfunded Mandates
A. 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.
B. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that
[[Page 56762]]
may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local,
and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector in
any one year. 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
A. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of
an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the
Regulatory Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a
statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
B. How Has EPA Complied With the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
This rule listing sites on the NPL does not impose any obligations
on any group, including small entities. This rule also does not
establish standards or requirements that any small entity must meet,
and imposes no direct costs on any small entity. Whether an entity,
small or otherwise, is liable for response costs for a release of a
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA 107(a). Any such liability exists regardless of whether the site
is listed on the NPL through this rulemaking. Thus, this rule does not
impose any requirements on any small entities. For the foregoing
reasons, I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
VII. Possible Changes to the Effective Date of the Rule
A. Has This Rule Been Submitted to Congress and the General Accounting
Office?
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added 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 has submitted 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. A ``major rule''
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
B. 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 document, 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.
C. 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 (DC 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 Transfer and Advancement Act
A. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-
[[Page 56763]]
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, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
B. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Apply to
This Final Rule?
No. This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
IX. Executive Order 12898
A. What Is Executive Order 12898?
Under Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations,'' as well as through EPA's April 1995, ``Environmental
Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agenda
Report,'' and National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has
undertaken to incorporate environmental justice into its policies and
programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice
concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice
initiatives to enhance environmental quality for all residents of the
United States. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no segment of the
population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
bears disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects as a result of EPA's policies, programs, and
activities, and all people live in clean and sustainable communities.
B. Does Executive Order 12898 Apply to This Final Rule?
No. While this rule revises the NPL, no action will result from
this rule that will have disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on any segment of the population.
X. Executive Order 13045
A. What Is Executive Order 13045?
Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
B. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not
an economically significant rule as defined by Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health or safety risks addressed by this section present
a disproportionate risk to children.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act
A. 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).
B. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
No. EPA has determined that the PRA does not apply because this
rule does not contain any information collection requirements that
require approval of the OMB.
XII. Executive Orders on Federalism
What Are the Executive Orders on Federalism and Are They Applicable to
This Final Rule?
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless
the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
XIII. Executive Order 13175
A. What Is Executive Order 13175?
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
B. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
[[Page 56764]]
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule.
XIV. Executive Order 13211
A. What Is Executive Order 13211?
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of
Energy Effects to the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, for certain
actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' Section 4(b) of
Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy actions'' as ``any
action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that
promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule
or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of
proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is
a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is
designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.''
B. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 (See
discussion of Executive Order 12866 above.)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Natural resources, Oil pollution, penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water
supply.
Dated: August 27, 2002.
Marianne Lamont Horinko,
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 and Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by
adding the following 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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
CA................................ Del Amo....................................... Los Angeles
* * * * * * *
IA................................ Railroad Avenue Groundwater Contamination..... Des Moines
* * * * * * *
MA................................ Hatheway and Patterson Company................ Mansfield
* * * * * * *
ME................................ Callahan Mine................................. Brooksville
* * * * * * *
MO................................ Oak Grove Village Well........................ Oak Grove Village
* * * * * * *
NC................................ Reasor Chemical Company....................... Castle Hayne
* * * * * * *
NJ................................ Atlantic Resources Corporation................ Sayreville
* * * * * * *
NJ................................ Diamond Head Oil Refinery Div................. Kearny
* * * * * * *
NJ................................ Quanta Resources.............................. Edgewater
* * * * * * *
NM................................ McGaffey and Main Groundwater Plume........... Roswell
* * * * * * *
NY................................ Cayuga County Ground Water Contamination...... Cayuga County
* * * * * * *
NY................................ Crown Cleaners of Watertown, Inc.............. Carthage
* * * * * * *
NY................................ Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal............... Ellenville
[[Page 56765]]
* * * * * * *
PA................................ Franklin Slag Pile (MDC)...................... Philadelphia
* * * * * * *
TX................................ Brine Service Company......................... Corpus Christi
* * * * * * *
TX................................ Patrick Bayou................................. Deer Park
* * * * * * *
UT................................ Eureka Mills.................................. Eureka
* * * * * * *
WI................................ Ashland/Northern States Power Lakefront....... Ashland
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be <=28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
Table 2.--Federal Facilities Section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/County Notes(a)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
MD................................ Curtis Bay Coast Guard Yard................... Anne Arundel County
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (if scored, HRS score need not be <=28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (included among the 100 top priority sites regardless of score).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
[FR Doc. 02-22538 Filed 9-4-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}