National Priorities List, Final Rule, 14719-14727 [E8-5557]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997).
This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order
12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).
Since tolerances and exemptions that
are established on the basis of a petition
under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as
the tolerance in this final rule, do not
require the issuance of a proposed rule,
the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
This final rule directly regulates
growers, food processors, food handlers,
and food retailers, not States or tribes,
nor does this action alter the
relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by
Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such,
the Agency has determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct
effect on States or tribal governments,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States or tribal
governments, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175,
entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000) do not apply
to this rule. In addition, This rule does
not impose any enforceable duty or
contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Public Law 104–4).
This action does not involve any
technical standards that would require
Agency consideration of voluntary
consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section
12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
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 this final rule in the
Federal Register. This final rule is not
a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides
and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL–8543–9; EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0685,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0686, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2007–0687, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0688, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0689, EPA–
HQ–SFUND–2006–0242, EPA–HQ–SFUND–
2007–0691, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0692,
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0693, EPA–HQ–
SFUND–2007–0694, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–
0695, EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0696]
RIN 2050–AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Dated: March 10, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is
amended as follows:
I
PART 180—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. Section 180.626 is amended by
adding alphabetically entries to the
table in paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:
I
§ 180.626 Prothioconazole; tolerances for
residues.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
Parts per
million
Commodity
*
*
*
Beet, sugar, roots .................
*
*
*
Soybean, forage ...................
Soybean, hay ........................
Soybean, seed ......................
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0.25
*
4.5
17
0.15
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–5290 Filed 3–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–S
VII. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report to each House of
the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14719
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may
be appropriate. This rule adds 12 sites
to the General Superfund Section of the
NPL.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
for this amendment to the NCP is April
18, 2008.
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 Jeng, phone: (703) 603–8852, email: jeng.terry@epa.gov, State, Tribal
and Site Identification Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division;
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation (mail code
5204P); U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW.; Washington, DC 20460; or the
Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424–
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14720
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of
Sites?
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From
the NPL as They Are Cleaned Up?
I. What Is the Construction Completion List
(CCL)?
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May 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 Dockets?
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL
Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What Did EPA Do With the Public
Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive
Order 12866 Review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How Has EPA Complied with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act (UMRA)?
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It
Applicable to This Final Rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to
This Final Rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to
This Final Rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
1. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order
13211?
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
2. Does the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act Apply to This
Final Rule?
J. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to
Congress and the General Accounting
Office?
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final
Rule Change?
3. What Could Cause a Change in the
Effective Date of This Rule?
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 or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, and
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutants
or contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. 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, or
releases or substantial threats of releases
into the environment of any pollutant or
contaminant that may present an
imminent or substantial danger to the
public health or welfare. 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 of
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants (42 U.S.C. 9601(23)).
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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,
pollutants or contaminants. 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.
Also, placing a site on the NPL does not
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 a Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score and
determining whether the facility is
placed on the NPL. EPA’s role is 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 tool to evaluate the
relative potential of uncontrolled
hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants 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
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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) pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 9605(a)(8)(B), each State may
designate a single site as its top priority
to be listed on the NPL, without any
HRS score. This provision of CERCLA
requires that, to the extent practicable,
the NPL include one facility designated
by each State as the greatest danger to
public health, welfare, or the
environment among known facilities in
the State. This mechanism for listing is
set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) the third mechanism
for listing, included in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites
to be listed without any 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; and
• 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) and generally has updated it at
least annually.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries
of Sites?
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. Indeed, the
precise nature and extent of the site are
typically not known at the time of
listing.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
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. However, the NPL site is not
necessarily coextensive with the
boundaries of the installation or plant,
and the boundaries of the installation or
plant are not necessarily 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 where that
contamination has come to be located,
or from where 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. In
addition, the site name is merely used
to help identify the geographic location
of the contamination, and is not meant
to constitute any determination of
liability at a site. 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
Remedial Investigation (‘‘RI’’) ‘‘is a
process undertaken * * * to determine
the nature and extent of the problem
presented by the release’’ as more
information is developed on site
contamination, and which is generally
performed in an interactive fashion with
the Feasibility Study (‘‘FS’’) (40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14721
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, the HRS inquiry focuses on an
evaluation of the threat posed and
therefore 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, it can submit supporting
information to the Agency at any time
after it 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 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.
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites
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.
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14722
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
I. What Is the Construction Completion
List (CCL)?
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for
Anticipated Use Measure?
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. For the most upto-date information on the CCL, see
EPA’s Internet site at https://
www.epa.gov/superfund.
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated
Use measure (formerly called Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse measure) represents
important Superfund accomplishments
and the measure reflects the high
priority EPA places on considering
anticipated future land use as part of
our remedy selection process. See
Guidance for Implementing the
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Measure, May
24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0–36. This
measure applies to final and deleted
sites where construction is complete, all
cleanup goals have been achieved, and
all institutional or other controls are in
place. EPA has been successful on many
occasions in carrying out remedial
actions that ensure protectiveness of
human health and the environment,
including current and future land users,
in a manner that allows contaminated
properties to be restored to
environmental and economic vitality
while ensuring protectiveness for
current and future land users. For
further information, please go to
https://www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.
II. Availability of Information to the
Public
A. May 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.
An electronic version of the public
docket is available through
www.regulations.gov (see table below
for Docket Identification numbers).
Although not all Docket materials may
be available electronically, you may still
access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket
facilities identified below in section II
D.
Site name
City/State
Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination ...................................................................
Plating, Inc. ......................................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Old Mines ................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Potosi ......................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Richwoods ...............................................................
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek .....................................................................................
Chem-Fab ........................................................................................................................
San German Ground Water Contamination ....................................................................
Donna Reservoir and Canal System ...............................................................................
Midessa Ground Water Plume ........................................................................................
San Jacinto River Waste Pits ..........................................................................................
Hidden Lane Landfill ........................................................................................................
Elkhart, IN ................
Great Bend, KS .......
Old Mines, MO ........
Potosi, MO ...............
Richwoods, MO .......
Gibbsboro, NJ .........
Doylestown, PA .......
San German, PR .....
Donna, TX ...............
Odessa, TX .............
Harris County, TX ....
Sterling, VA .............
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
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. For sites that received
comments during the comment period,
the Headquarters Docket also contains a
Support Document that includes EPA’s
responses to comments.
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Regional Dockets. For sites that received
comments during the comment period,
the Regional Docket also contains a
Support Document that includes EPA’s
responses to comments.
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by
appointment only, after the publication
of this rule. The hours of operation for
the Headquarters Docket are from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 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
3340, Washington, DC 20004; (202) 566–
1744.
The contact information for the
Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA,
NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FDMS Docket ID No.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0685.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0686.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0687.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0688.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0689.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2006–0242.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0691.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0692.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0693.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0694.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0695.
EPA–HQ–SFUND–2007–0696.
Records and Information Center,
Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114–2023;
(617) 918–1417.
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.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA,
KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta,
GA 30303; (404) 562–8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI,
MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC–7J,
Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604;
(312) 353–5821.
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.
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14723
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO,
NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, KS 66101; (913) 551–
7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT,
ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR–B,
Denver, CO 80202–1129; (303) 312–
6463.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI,
NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415)
972–3097.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR,
WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue,
Mail Stop ECL–115, Seattle, WA
98101; (206) 553–2782.
www.epa.gov/superfund/ (look under
the Superfund sites category) or by
contacting the Superfund Docket (see
contact information above).
E. How May I Obtain a Current List of
NPL Sites?
A. Additions to the NPL
You may obtain a current list of NPL
sites via the Internet at https://
III. Contents of This Final Rule
This final rule adds the following 12
sites to the NPL, all to the General
Superfund Section:
State
Site name
IN ......
KS .....
MO ....
MO ....
MO ....
NJ ......
PA .....
PR .....
TX .....
TX .....
TX .....
VA .....
Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination ...................................................................................................................
Plating, Inc .......................................................................................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Old Mines ................................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Potosi ......................................................................................................................
Washington County Lead District—Richwoods ...............................................................................................................
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek .....................................................................................................................................
Chem-Fab ........................................................................................................................................................................
San German Ground Water Contamination ....................................................................................................................
Donna Reservoir and Canal System ..............................................................................................................................
Midessa Ground Water Plume ........................................................................................................................................
San Jacinto River Waste Pits .........................................................................................................................................
Hidden Lane Landfill .......................................................................................................................................................
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
B. What Did EPA Do With the Public
Comments It Received?
EPA reviewed all comments received
on the sites in this rule and responded
to all relevant comments.
Four sites had no comments following
proposal: Washington County Lead
District—Richwoods (MO), Chem-Fab
(PA), Midessa Ground Water Plume
(TX), and Plating, Inc (KS). One
comment supporting cleanup was
incorrectly submitted to the Plating, Inc.
docket because of an erroneous docket
number, but actually was discussing
Hidden Lane Landfill (VA). Two sites
had only comments favoring listing and/
or suggesting cleanup was needed:
Lusher Street Ground Water
Contamination (IN) and Donna
Reservoir and Canal System (TX). One
site, San Jacinto River Waste Pits (TX),
had a number of comments favoring
listing and cleanup. One of the
comments urged EPA not only to list the
site but also to consider environmental
targets, which were not used in scoring
the site. EPA will change the HRS
scoring record to indicate
environmental targets were not scored
but should be considered when EPA
performs more extensive investigation
under the RI/FS. One other comment on
the site requested an extension of the
comment period due to a delay of one
week in receiving materials. EPA
extended the comment period one week
but received no additional comments.
EPA received nine comments on the
Hidden Lane Landfill (VA) proposed
site. None of the comments opposed
listing; they asked the site be cleaned up
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
City/county
quickly and offered suggestions for how
best to accomplish this. EPA will keep
citizens informed of the site
investigation and clean up alternatives,
and will offer citizens an opportunity to
comment on cleanup options before
final remedies are determined. One of
the nine comments, from the Loudoun
County Board of Supervisors, discussed
land use policies and legislative actions
by the county at the site. The comment
also specifically stated the county did
not oppose listing, but mentioned
several clerical errors in the
documentation record for which the
county sought clarification/correction.
None of the errors affected the listing
score, but EPA will make changes in the
documentation record to correct the
errors, mostly related to site history and
the misidentification of the values for
one sample not used in scoring.
Four sites received adverse comments
on the HRS score and/or listing. These
site comments are being addressed
individually in response to comments
documents available concurrently with
the publication of this final rule. These
sites are San German Ground Water
Contamination (PR), Washington
County Lead District—Old Mines (MO),
Washington County Lead District—
Potosi (MO), and Sherwin-Williams/
Hilliards Creek (NJ). Please refer to the
docket for EPA’s responses to these
comments.
EPA also received a comment, not
directed at any particular site, for all
sites in the April 19, 2006, proposed
rule. The comment suggested that listing
is inconsistent with the separation of
powers doctrine and listing these sites
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Elkhart.
Great Bend.
Old Mines.
Potosi.
Richwoods.
Gibbsboro.
Doylestown.
San German.
Donna.
Odessa.
Harris County.
Sterling.
should only be done by Congress. The
Supreme Court has stated that ‘‘when
Congress confers decision-making
authority upon agencies [it] must lay
down by legislative act an intelligible
principle to which the person or body
authorized to act is directed to
conform.’’ Whitman v. American
Trucking Ass’ns, Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 472
(2001) (internal citation and
punctuation omitted). The Court also
noted that ‘‘[i]n the history of the Court
we have found the requisite ‘intelligible
principle’ lacking in only two statutes,
one of which provided literally no
guidance for the exercise of discretion,
and the other of which conferred
authority to regulate the entire economy
on the basis of no more precise a
standard than stimulating the economy
by assuring ‘fair competition.’ ’’ Id. at
474. CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(A)
provides several considerations for EPA
when ‘‘determining priorities among
releases or threatened releases
throughout the United States’’ and
listing decisions are based upon these
considerations, under CERCLA section
105(a)(8)(B). Accordingly, EPA may
properly make NPL listing
determinations.
All comments that were received by
EPA are contained in the Headquarters
Docket and are also listed in EPA’s
electronic public Docket and comment
system at www.regulations.gov.
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14724
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 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.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
1. 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 Office of Management and
Budget (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.
2. 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.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
1. 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. 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 hazardous
substances depends on whether that
entity is liable under CERCLA section
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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. 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 where 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
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
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.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final
Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
1. 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.’’
2. 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
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.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
1. 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14725
(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.
2. 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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Usage
Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order
13211?
This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy
action’’ as defined in Executive Order
13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May
22, 2001) because it is not likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer 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, 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.
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
14726
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
2. 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.
J. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule 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, that 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).
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 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 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.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the
Effective Date of This Rule?
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.
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: March 10, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:
I
PART 300—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 300
continues to read as follows:
I
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 adding the following
sites in alphabetical order to read as
follows:
I
Appendix B to Part 300—National
Priorities List
TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION
Site name
*
*
*
*
*
Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination .........................................................................................
*
Elkhart.
*
IN ......
*
*
*
*
*
Plating, Inc .............................................................................................................................................
*
Great Bend.
*
KS .....
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
State
*
*
*
*
*
Washington County Lead District—Old Mines ......................................................................................
*
Old Mines.
*
MO ....
*
*
*
*
*
Washington County Lead District—Potosi .............................................................................................
*
Potosi.
*
MO ....
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00068
City/county
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
Notes a
14727
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 19, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—GENERAL SUPERFUND SECTION—Continued
State
Site name
*
*
*
*
*
Washington County Lead District—Richwoods .....................................................................................
*
Richwoods.
*
MO ....
*
*
*
*
*
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek ...........................................................................................................
*
Gibbsboro.
*
NJ ......
*
*
*
*
*
Chem-Fab ..............................................................................................................................................
*
Doylestown.
*
PA .....
*
*
*
*
*
San German Ground Water Contamination ..........................................................................................
*
San German.
*
PR .....
*
*
*
*
*
Donna Reservoir and Canal System .....................................................................................................
*
Donna.
*
TX .....
*
*
*
*
*
Midessa Ground Water Plume ...............................................................................................................
*
Odessa.
*
TX .....
*
*
*
*
*
San Jacinto River Waste Pits ................................................................................................................
*
Harris County.
*
TX .....
*
*
*
*
*
Hidden Lane Landfill ..............................................................................................................................
*
Sterling.
*
VA .....
*
*
City/county
*
*
*
Notes a
*
*
A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be ≥ 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be ≥ 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
a
*
*
*
*
clause is to be used only when the
applicable conditions are met.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–5557 Filed 3–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
[FR Doc. 08–55504 Filed 3–18–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–S
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
48 CFR Part 2152
Office of the Secretary
Precontract Provisions and Contract
Clauses
49 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. OST 2008–0103]
CFR Correction
RIN 2105–AD73
In Title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 1500 to 2899, revised
as of October 1, 2007, on page 440, in
section 2152.370, reinstate paragraphs
(a) and (b) before the table to read as
follows:
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
2152.370
Use of the matrix.
(a) The matrix in this section lists the
FAR and LIFAR clauses to be used with
the FEGLI Program contract. The clauses
are to be incorporated in the contract in
full text.
(b) Certain contract clauses are
mandatory for FEGLI Program contracts.
Other clauses are to be used only when
made applicable by pertinent sections of
the FAR or LIFAR. An ‘‘M’’ in the ‘‘Use
Status’’ column indicates that the clause
is mandatory. An ‘‘A’’ indicates that the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:13 Mar 18, 2008
Jkt 214001
Organization and Delegation of Powers
and Duties; Secretarial Succession
Office of the Secretary of
Transportation (OST), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This amendment will revise
the order of Secretarial succession for
the Department. This action is taken on
the Department’s initiative.
DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna O’Berry, Office of the Assistant
General Counsel for Operations,
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W96–
317, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone
(202) 366–6136.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 49 CFR 1.26, the order of
succession to act as Secretary of
Transportation is set forth as follows:
The Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary
of Transportation for Policy, General
Counsel, Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs,
Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy, Assistant Secretary for Budget
and Programs, Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs, Assistant
Secretary for Administration, Federal
Aviation Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration Regional
Administrator, Southwest Region,
Federal Aviation Administrator
Regional Administrator, Great Lakes
Region.
Section 102(e) of title 49, United
States Code, authorizes the Secretary to
prescribe the order of succession for the
Department’s Assistant Secretaries and
the General Counsel. We are updating
our Secretarial Order of Succession to
reflect recent Secretarial decisions
concerning the order of succession for
Assistant Secretaries of Transportation.
As this rule relates solely to
Departmental organization, procedures,
and practice, notice and comment on it
are unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
In addition, the Secretary finds that
security and continuity of operations
E:\FR\FM\19MRR1.SGM
19MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 19, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14719-14727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-5557]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[FRL-8543-9; EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686, EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0687, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689, EPA-
HQ-SFUND-2006-0242, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695,
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696]
RIN 2050-AD75
National Priorities List, Final Rule
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 12 sites to the General Superfund Section
of the NPL.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date for this amendment to the NCP
is April 18, 2008.
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 Jeng, phone: (703) 603-8852, e-
mail: jeng.terry@epa.gov, State, Tribal and Site Identification Branch;
Assessment and Remediation Division; Office of Superfund Remediation
and Technology Innovation (mail code 5204P); U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.; Washington, DC 20460;
or the Superfund Hotline, phone (800) 424-
[[Page 14720]]
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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
G. How Are Sites Removed From the NPL?
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites From the NPL as They Are
Cleaned Up?
I. What Is the Construction Completion List (CCL)?
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May 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
Dockets?
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
III. Contents of This Final Rule
A. Additions to the NPL
B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. What Is Executive Order 12866?
2. Is This Final Rule Subject to Executive Order 12866 Review?
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. What Is the Paperwork Reduction Act?
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. What Is the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
2. How Has EPA Complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act?
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. What Is the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)?
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It Applicable to This Final
Rule?
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
1. What Is Executive Order 13175?
2. Does Executive Order 13175 Apply to This Final Rule?
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
1. What Is Executive Order 13045?
2. Does Executive Order 13045 Apply to This Final Rule?
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Usage
1. Is This Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
2. Does the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Apply to This Final Rule?
J. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule to Congress and the General
Accounting Office?
2. Could the Effective Date of This Final Rule Change?
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
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 or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, and releases or
substantial threats of releases into the environment of any pollutants
or contaminant that may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the public health or welfare. 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, or releases or substantial threats of
releases into the environment of any pollutant or contaminant that may
present an imminent or substantial danger to the public health or
welfare. 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 of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants (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,
pollutants or contaminants. 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. Also, placing a site on the NPL does not 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 a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score
and determining whether the facility is placed on the NPL. EPA's role
is 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 tool to evaluate
the relative potential of uncontrolled hazardous substances, pollutants
or contaminants 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
[[Page 14721]]
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) pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
9605(a)(8)(B), each State may designate a single site as its top
priority to be listed on the NPL, without any HRS score. This provision
of CERCLA requires that, to the extent practicable, the NPL include one
facility designated by each State as the greatest danger to public
health, welfare, or the environment among known facilities in the
State. This mechanism for listing is set out in the NCP at 40 CFR
300.425(c)(2); (3) the third mechanism for listing, included in the NCP
at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(3), allows certain sites to be listed without any
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; and
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) and generally has updated it at least annually.
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. Does the NPL Define the Boundaries of Sites?
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. Indeed, the precise nature and extent of
the site are typically not known at the time of listing.
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. However, the NPL site is not necessarily
coextensive with the boundaries of the installation or plant, and the
boundaries of the installation or plant are not necessarily 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 where that contamination has come to be located,
or from where 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. In addition, the site name is merely used to
help identify the geographic location of the contamination, and is not
meant to constitute any determination of liability at a site. 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 Remedial Investigation (``RI'')
``is a process undertaken * * * to determine the nature and extent of
the problem presented by the release'' as more information is developed
on site contamination, and which is generally performed in an
interactive fashion with the Feasibility Study (``FS'') (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, the HRS
inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed and therefore 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, it can submit supporting information to the Agency at any
time after it 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.
H. May EPA Delete Portions of Sites 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.
[[Page 14722]]
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. For the most up-to-date information on the
CCL, see EPA's Internet site at https://www.epa.gov/superfund.
J. What Is the Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use Measure?
The Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use measure (formerly called
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure) represents important Superfund
accomplishments and the measure reflects the high priority EPA places
on considering anticipated future land use as part of our remedy
selection process. See Guidance for Implementing the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse Measure, May 24, 2006, OSWER 9365.0-36. This measure applies
to final and deleted sites where construction is complete, all cleanup
goals have been achieved, and all institutional or other controls are
in place. EPA has been successful on many occasions in carrying out
remedial actions that ensure protectiveness of human health and the
environment, including current and future land users, in a manner that
allows contaminated properties to be restored to environmental and
economic vitality while ensuring protectiveness for current and future
land users. For further information, please go to https://www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/recycle/tools/sitewide.htm.
II. Availability of Information to the Public
A. May 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.
An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov (see table below for Docket Identification
numbers). Although not all Docket materials may be available
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available
Docket materials through the Docket facilities identified below in
section II D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site name City/State FDMS Docket ID No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lusher Street Ground Water Elkhart, IN................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0685.
Contamination.
Plating, Inc..................... Great Bend, KS................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0686.
Washington County Lead District-- Old Mines, MO................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0687.
Old Mines.
Washington County Lead District-- Potosi, MO.................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0688.
Potosi.
Washington County Lead District-- Richwoods, MO................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0689.
Richwoods.
Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek. Gibbsboro, NJ................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2006-0242.
Chem-Fab......................... Doylestown, PA................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0691.
San German Ground Water San German, PR................ EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0692.
Contamination.
Donna Reservoir and Canal System. Donna, TX..................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0693.
Midessa Ground Water Plume....... Odessa, TX.................... EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0694.
San Jacinto River Waste Pits..... Harris County, TX............. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0695.
Hidden Lane Landfill............. Sterling, VA.................. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0696.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Headquarters Docket
also contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to
comments.
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. For sites that
received comments during the comment period, the Regional Docket also
contains a Support Document that includes EPA's responses to comments.
D. How Do I Access the Documents?
You may view the documents, by appointment only, after the
publication of this rule. The hours of operation for the Headquarters
Docket are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 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 3340,
Washington, DC 20004; (202) 566-1744.
The contact information for the Regional Dockets is as follows:
Joan Berggren, Region 1 (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT), U.S. EPA, Superfund
Records and Information Center, Mailcode HSC, One Congress Street,
Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023; (617) 918-1417.
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.
Debbie Jourdan, Region 4 (AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, TN), U.S. EPA, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., 9th floor, Atlanta, GA 30303; (404) 562-8862.
Janet Pfundheller, Region 5 (IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI), U.S. EPA, Records
Center, Superfund Division SRC-7J, Metcalfe Federal Building, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; (312) 353-5821.
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.
[[Page 14723]]
Michelle Quick, Region 7 (IA, KS, MO, NE), U.S. EPA, 901 North 5th
Street, Kansas City, KS 66101; (913) 551-7335.
Gwen Christiansen, Region 8 (CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY), U.S. EPA, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Mailcode 8EPR-B, Denver, CO 80202-1129; (303) 312-6463.
Dawn Richmond, Region 9 (AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU), U.S. EPA, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 972-3097.
Ken Marcy, Region 10 (AK, ID, OR, WA), U.S. EPA, 1200 6th Avenue, Mail
Stop ECL-115, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-2782.
E. How May I Obtain a Current List of NPL Sites?
You may obtain a current list of NPL sites via the Internet at
https://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 the following 12 sites to the NPL, all to the
General Superfund Section:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Site name City/county
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN............. Lusher Street Ground Water Elkhart.
Contamination.
KS............. Plating, Inc.............. Great Bend.
MO............. Washington County Lead Old Mines.
District--Old Mines.
MO............. Washington County Lead Potosi.
District--Potosi.
MO............. Washington County Lead Richwoods.
District--Richwoods.
NJ............. Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Gibbsboro.
Creek.
PA............. Chem-Fab.................. Doylestown.
PR............. San German Ground Water San German.
Contamination.
TX............. Donna Reservoir and Canal Donna.
System.
TX............. Midessa Ground Water Plume Odessa.
TX............. San Jacinto River Waste Harris County.
Pits.
VA............. Hidden Lane Landfill...... Sterling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What Did EPA Do With the Public Comments It Received?
EPA reviewed all comments received on the sites in this rule and
responded to all relevant comments.
Four sites had no comments following proposal: Washington County
Lead District--Richwoods (MO), Chem-Fab (PA), Midessa Ground Water
Plume (TX), and Plating, Inc (KS). One comment supporting cleanup was
incorrectly submitted to the Plating, Inc. docket because of an
erroneous docket number, but actually was discussing Hidden Lane
Landfill (VA). Two sites had only comments favoring listing and/or
suggesting cleanup was needed: Lusher Street Ground Water Contamination
(IN) and Donna Reservoir and Canal System (TX). One site, San Jacinto
River Waste Pits (TX), had a number of comments favoring listing and
cleanup. One of the comments urged EPA not only to list the site but
also to consider environmental targets, which were not used in scoring
the site. EPA will change the HRS scoring record to indicate
environmental targets were not scored but should be considered when EPA
performs more extensive investigation under the RI/FS. One other
comment on the site requested an extension of the comment period due to
a delay of one week in receiving materials. EPA extended the comment
period one week but received no additional comments.
EPA received nine comments on the Hidden Lane Landfill (VA)
proposed site. None of the comments opposed listing; they asked the
site be cleaned up quickly and offered suggestions for how best to
accomplish this. EPA will keep citizens informed of the site
investigation and clean up alternatives, and will offer citizens an
opportunity to comment on cleanup options before final remedies are
determined. One of the nine comments, from the Loudoun County Board of
Supervisors, discussed land use policies and legislative actions by the
county at the site. The comment also specifically stated the county did
not oppose listing, but mentioned several clerical errors in the
documentation record for which the county sought clarification/
correction. None of the errors affected the listing score, but EPA will
make changes in the documentation record to correct the errors, mostly
related to site history and the misidentification of the values for one
sample not used in scoring.
Four sites received adverse comments on the HRS score and/or
listing. These site comments are being addressed individually in
response to comments documents available concurrently with the
publication of this final rule. These sites are San German Ground Water
Contamination (PR), Washington County Lead District--Old Mines (MO),
Washington County Lead District--Potosi (MO), and Sherwin-Williams/
Hilliards Creek (NJ). Please refer to the docket for EPA's responses to
these comments.
EPA also received a comment, not directed at any particular site,
for all sites in the April 19, 2006, proposed rule. The comment
suggested that listing is inconsistent with the separation of powers
doctrine and listing these sites should only be done by Congress. The
Supreme Court has stated that ``when Congress confers decision-making
authority upon agencies [it] must lay down by legislative act an
intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to act is
directed to conform.'' Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc., 531
U.S. 457, 472 (2001) (internal citation and punctuation omitted). The
Court also noted that ``[i]n the history of the Court we have found the
requisite `intelligible principle' lacking in only two statutes, one of
which provided literally no guidance for the exercise of discretion,
and the other of which conferred authority to regulate the entire
economy on the basis of no more precise a standard than stimulating the
economy by assuring `fair competition.' '' Id. at 474. CERCLA section
105(a)(8)(A) provides several considerations for EPA when ``determining
priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United
States'' and listing decisions are based upon these considerations,
under CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B). Accordingly, EPA may properly make
NPL listing determinations.
All comments that were received by EPA are contained in the
Headquarters Docket and are also listed in EPA's electronic public
Docket and comment system at www.regulations.gov.
[[Page 14724]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
1. 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 Office of Management and Budget (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.
2. 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.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
1. 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.
2. Does the Paperwork Reduction Act Apply to This Final Rule?
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
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.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
1. 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.
2. 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
hazardous substances depends on whether that entity is liable under
CERCLA section 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.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
1. 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 where 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
[[Page 14725]]
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.
2. Does UMRA Apply to This Final Rule?
No, EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that 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.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
What Is Executive Order 13132 and Is It 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.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
1. 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.''
2. 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
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.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
1. 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.
2. 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.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Usage
Is this Rule Subject to Executive Order 13211?
This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
1. What Is the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act?
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer 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, 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.
[[Page 14726]]
2. 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.
J. Congressional Review Act
1. Has EPA Submitted This Rule 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, that 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).
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 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.
3. What Could Cause a Change in the Effective Date of This Rule?
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.
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: March 10, 2008.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
0
40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:
PART 300--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Table 1 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
IN....... Lusher Street Ground Elkhart...........
Water Contamination.
* * * * * * *
KS....... Plating, Inc......... Great Bend........
* * * * * * *
MO....... Washington County Old Mines.........
Lead District--Old
Mines.
* * * * * * *
MO....... Washington County Potosi............
Lead District--
Potosi.
[[Page 14727]]
* * * * * * *
MO....... Washington County Richwoods.........
Lead District--
Richwoods.
* * * * * * *
NJ....... Sherwin-Williams/ Gibbsboro.........
Hilliards Creek.
* * * * * * *
PA....... Chem-Fab............. Doylestown........
* * * * * * *
PR....... San German Ground San German........
Water Contamination.
* * * * * * *
TX....... Donna Reservoir and Donna.............
Canal System.
* * * * * * *
TX....... Midessa Ground Water Odessa............
Plume.
* * * * * * *
TX....... San Jacinto River Harris County.....
Waste Pits.
* * * * * * *
VA....... Hidden Lane Landfill. Sterling..........
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a A = Based on issuance of health advisory by Agency for Toxic Substance
and Disease Registry (HRS score need not be >= 28.50).
C = Sites on Construction Completion list.
S = State top priority (HRS score need not be >= 28.50).
P = Sites with partial deletion(s).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-5557 Filed 3-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
